Created attachment 151230 [details] patch to remove broken for arm update the port to unbreak on arm for 10 & 11
Created attachment 151231 [details] poudriere log for 110
Created attachment 151232 [details] poudriere log for 10/stable
Comment on attachment 151230 [details] patch to remove broken for arm Looks like this is the "pattern" to do this. .if ${ARCH} == "arm" && ${OSVERSION} < 1000000 BROKEN= Not supported on ARM platform below release 10.0 .endif
Created attachment 151233 [details] added Sean's fix for handling below 10/stable
Thanks to Ian Lapore <ian@FreeBSD.org> and Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@FreeBSD.org> for the infrastructure work here. Ian fixed the compile issue, and Baptists fixed 10/stable builds on 11/current. Much appreciated.
Sorry, but I think this is not really a suitable solution. If a fix made it into the base system in a certain revision that allows compilation e.g. on 10/stable, we need a suitable OSVERSION bump for that. As of now, with the current condition .if ${ARCH} == "arm" && ${OSVERSION} < 1000000 BROKEN= Not supported on ARM platform below release 10.0 .endif it happily tries to build in my 10/stable arm jail (r276179), but of course fails.
It works at: p101armv6 10.1-STABLE r276594 arm.armv6 svn+https 2015-01-02 17:33:46 /usr/local/poudriere/jails/p101armv6 bit I don't think(!) there's been a OSVERSION bump since ian@'s commit.
IMHO an OSVERSION bump would be the right thing to do. If a OSVERSION condition in a port says "${OSVERSION} < 1000000", then a 10.0-RELEASE user can rightfully expect this to build on her machine.
I agree, can ian@ or sbruno@ bump both stable/10 and head OSVERSION?
looks like I can use 1100052 for head, but still need a stable/10 bump.
Bumped to 1001505 in r276633.
Created attachment 151307 [details] put OSVERSION checks in for arm Please let me know if this has style bugs. I can't seem to convince poudriere to NOT put TRYBROKEN. :(
@Ian: Thanks for the OSVERSION bump in stable! No style issues from my side. Happy to take the patch. Just a low prio FYI: Personally, I would not use the test clauses for -current. It is not a supported release and is even expected to be broken from time to time.
The remaining issue is a different one: root@p101armv6-default:/usr/ports/sysutils/lsof # make -V ARCH armv6 The test for ${ARCH} == "arm" will fail on armv6 jails or raspberry pi.
Created attachment 151328 [details] make arm and armv6 ARCH checks
would it be better to use ${MACHINE} == arm?
looks like ${MACHINE} is NOT defined for the ports, so what I have in the latest patch should do it, unless there are other arm* ARCH's.
if you would rather not have the -CURRENT checks, feel free to remove them at the commit...
Created attachment 151338 [details] add armv6hf to the list. I hope that's all the arm* archs
Created attachment 151341 [details] use a better way to get all arm archs thanks to Ian@ for the hint
A commit references this bug: Author: riggs Date: Mon Jan 5 09:29:59 UTC 2015 New revision: 376285 URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/376285 Log: Mark broken on arm OSVERSIONS before a required change in base PR: 196454 Submitted by: ler@lerctr.org Changes: head/sysutils/lsof/Makefile
Committed, with corrections in the !empty statement. It does not like the curly braces.