On 2012-Apr-10, 09:04, Jerry wrote: > On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 07:40:09 -0500 > Mark Linimon articulated: > > > Finally, I agree that FreeBSD can't "guarantee" any given ports will > > work, but I think we owe the users the effort to make sure if a port > > is included, it's at least not completely useless. > > To "guarantee" that the port will work is certainly beyond the scope > of the ports system; however, to guarantee that it is fetch-able > and build-able is an implied action by the simple fact that it is > included in the ports structure. If, after a reasonable amount of time, > a solution for a port's inability to properly build or if the port is > just plain not able to be fetched, then it should be removed from the > port system. There is no upside to keeping ports that will not build, > or cannot be fetched.
For the record, the port in question was fetchable / buildable / runnable. For some reason, some python class sometimes doesn't get byte-compiled, resulting in packaging (PLIST) errors. -- Pietro Cerutti The FreeBSD Project g...@freebsd.org PGP Public Key: http://gahr.ch/pgp
pgppnRkZc7urK.pgp
Description: PGP signature
