ports libiconv -> base iconv

[Boris Samorodov]

31.08.2013 23:17, Boris Samorodov пишет:

> (let's change the subject to a more apropriate)
> 
> 31.08.2013 18:28, Guido Falsi пишет:
> 
>> I have spent a few hours experimenting and produced this PR:
>>
>> http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/181693

Guido, here are some notes about your PR and patches.

There are two patches. Seems that the second one is not needed.
Is it?

I know it's very time consuming and thanks for your work, but...
I would not recommend to include at the patch changes not linked
with the matter. Ports are changing (headers, optionsNG, LIB_DEPENDS
syntax, etc.) -- it may be extreamly difficult to you to create a patch
which is ready to test by portmgr, then do some changes to the patch
and then finally to get a patch which is ready to commit. Actually it
doesn't apply _now_ (several hours after submitting a PR!), not to say
in a week or two... BTW, failed hunks are almost all have number 1, so
headers are changing rapidly.

And I have a question about the amount of ports at your patch.
I grepped the first patch for "Index" and got 97 files. So you patch
about a hundred ports. Then I grepped the portstree makefiles for
"iconv" and got 778 ports (let's assume some are false positives, so
actual amout may be aroud 700). So the question is: are those 600
untouched ports currently ready to use base iconv (well, after bmk
changes)? If yes, then our portstree is at a good state! (Well, maybe
those that just have USES=iconv are ready?)

Sorry, I did just a quick glance at the matter, so you may understand it
better. I beg your pardon if I'm terribly wrong. Thanks!

-- 
WBR, Boris Samorodov (bsam)
FreeBSD Committer, http://www.FreeBSD.org The Power To Serve