Created attachment 226743 [details] v1 (use "git am") /usr/bin/cc can be absent due to base built WITHOUT_CLANG, external toolchain from ports can be installed instead. Respect $CC from environment, e.g. when /usr/local/share/toolchains/*.mk gets included: cc ucode-split.c -o ucode-split sh: cc: not found *** [ucode-split] Error code 127 Tier-1 architectures poudriere testport (use zstdless): (ports 3036f585e6b6af48cb255acf2cdc156c243afe95 Tue Jul 27 21:49:07 2021 +0300) 11.4/amd64: OK https://codeberg.org/ei/misc/raw/branch/main/poudriere/devcpu-data-1.39_114-amd64.log.zst 11.4/i386: OK https://codeberg.org/ei/misc/raw/branch/main/poudriere/devcpu-data-1.39_114-i386.log.zst 12.2/amd64: OK https://codeberg.org/ei/misc/raw/branch/main/poudriere/devcpu-data-1.39_122-amd64.log.zst 12.2/i386: OK https://codeberg.org/ei/misc/raw/branch/main/poudriere/devcpu-data-1.39_122-i386.log.zst 13.0/amd64: OK https://codeberg.org/ei/misc/raw/branch/main/poudriere/devcpu-data-1.39_130-amd64.log.zst Runtime on 14-CURRENT base fork + ports fork: OK (dmesg CPU entry appears). PORTREVISION is not bumped because ucode files of package did not change, only manifest with ports tree hash: (root of extracted package, git repo initialized before patch) $ git diff modified: +COMPACT_MANIFEST modified: +MANIFEST
oh yeah, this is solid. I'll commit today.
A commit in branch main references this bug: URL: https://cgit.FreeBSD.org/ports/commit/?id=38c41132b06b566c476f09167431a4446db6170b commit 38c41132b06b566c476f09167431a4446db6170b Author: Sean Bruno <sbruno@FreeBSD.org> AuthorDate: 2021-07-30 20:48:46 +0000 Commit: Sean Bruno <sbruno@FreeBSD.org> CommitDate: 2021-07-30 20:53:48 +0000 sysutils/devcpu-data: respect CC No need to bump PORTREVISION as this only fixes a build that never worked before this commit. PR: 257459 Reported by: evgeniy@khramtsov.org sysutils/devcpu-data/files/Makefile | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
It looks this one can be merged to quarterly branch, and is there anything else to keep this ticket open?
(In reply to Li-Wen Hsu from comment #3) Not really, I wasn't going to merge this as it isn't really a bugfix, but if someone wants to grab it, go for it.
(In reply to Sean Bruno from comment #4) Oh, right, I misread the log and thought the port wasn't built. Let's close this. :-)