On 21/01/2012 20:46, Mark Linimon wrote: > tl;dr: I want to switch the default assumption we're making. > > IMHO when new ports come into the tree, we should make our default > assumption that we will try to build them on amd64 and i386. For cases > that this does not hold, we consider this Bad and committer-must-fix. > For the tier-2s, we shift the default assumption to "only set it to > buildable once it has been shown to be so". So, the burden of proof > shifts the other way: to a user of a tier-2 to claim "I tried this and > it works", rather than portmgr saying "we tried this and it doesn't work".
Doesn't your proposed change in semantics of the 'FOR_ARCHS' stuff mean that over time, as other architectures become more popular, most ports will have to have an explicit 'ONLY_FOR_ARCHS' setting? If the default effectively becomes 'ONLY_FOR_ARCHS= i386 amd64' then as ports are shown to work on different platforms they will need an ONLY_FOR_ARCHS line in their Makefiles listing where they are known to work? Or else the ports becomes effectively i386 / amd64 only? > (Of course, for things like p5-* it doesn't really matter; if perl > builds, to a first approximation they'll build as well. I'm talking > about the things like biology/, deskutils/, games/, math/, science, > x11*/, and so forth.) > > What do people think? There are a lot of ports where the distinction between CPU architectures is pretty much irrelevant. I can't see portmaster(8) (for example) failing to work anywhere the base system works. I was thinking about this a while back. Test the contents of packages to see if they install any object code -- ports/129210 -- and mark the ones that don't as arch-independent in some way (CATEGORIES+= arch-indep perhaps?) Cheers, Matthew -- Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 7 Priory Courtyard Flat 3 PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate JID: matt...@infracaninophile.co.uk Kent, CT11 9PW
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature