> On Jan 12, 2022, at 2:06 AM, Philip Guenther <guent...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> On Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 4:09 PM Daniel Dickman <didick...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 8:12 PM Leo Larnack <l...@pseven.xyz> wrote:
>> >
>> > i386
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> with this diff I was able to install includes, rebuild ld.so and
>> ctfconv. I've not managed to build a release yet.
> ...
>
> Umm, with what diff? There was no diff in nor attached to that message. :-/
I see sthen already sent you the link. Leo was asked to split his diff by
architecture. I did the testing for the i386 diff he proposed.
>
> (That was a lot of lines of output. I don't know about ports@, but my
> expectation would be there would be *zero* reviewers of anything before, say,
> the last 50 lines of output before the switch to actual compilation.
> Standard "make lots of noise so when a failure occurs we can see the leadup,
> but we'll ignore it otherwise" style of output, like a base build. You read
> the lead up to the warnings and errors only. <shrug>)
Yeah. No this is very bad advice.
I’m going to have to *strongly* disagree with you here Philip. I don’t expect
most people to be setting up i386 boxes to test this so providing the full logs
would be helpful to compare against amd64 which is obviously working for Leo. I
think Stuart was making the same point.
If I tested on amd64 then I’d expect most people would be able to check it
themselves.
>
>
> Philip Guenther
>
