On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 12:31:28PM -0500, Mark Linimon wrote: > On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 08:09:36AM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote: > > I forgot I had the DOCS option unset as it was unset ages ago > > and updates have always worked. The question is "why are changes > > to a port committed without proper testing?" Yes, "proper > > testing" should include testing of the effects of (un)setting > > individual Makefile options. > > The number of combinations is huge.
There are 3 options for graphics/xfig. It takes all of 5 minutes to build and install xfig on a 5 year old laptop. The options are mutually exclusive, so one needs to build and install the port 4 times (i.e., a whole 20 to 25 minutes). > > It's just not feasible. > I'm not advocating that portmgr should set up the testing on the FreeBSD cluster. The testing should be done by the individual maintainers. If s/he includes 3 (or 2 dozen) options in the Makefile, then s/he should test those options when s/he changes/updates the port. If it is too inconvenient or too labor intensive to test the options (i.e., 2 dozen options), then perhaps the options aren't too terribly important and should be removed. > Even if it were, we have 2042 ports PRs (171 or so are about staging), > and those ought to be our priorites IMHO. Yes, those should be the priorities. Hopefully, any change to a port (that addresses one of these PRs) is properly tested. -- Steve _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
