Created attachment 146481 [details] p5-Devel-NYTProf-5.06.patch - Update to 5.06 - Fix spaces in pkg-descr - Strip .so files Generated with FreeBSD Port Tools 1.02 (mode: update, diff: SVN)
*** Bug 193115 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Thank you, my mail server could not connect to mx1.freebsd.org in first time, and I fill another bug report by hands. But then sendmail has connected successfully and original request was sent.
Could you please provide some poudriere or redports.org logs that confirm your patch.
(In reply to Carlo Strub from comment #3) > Could you please provide some poudriere or redports.org logs that confirm > your patch. Sorry, I don’t understand what exactly and why you need. Please point me to documentation where requirement to this confirmation are described. This is the first time since I maintain some freebsd ports when something like this requested from me.
Consider it a help for us committers. John Marino is better to comment on this. Not sure if he has updated the documentation yet, adding him to CC.
Vladmir, the new documentation is being drafted. I've seen it, but it's not published yet. The old documentation is here: https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/books/porters-handbook/porting-testing.html It's obsolete, it doesn't talk about "make check-plist", "make stage-qa", etc, all of which the port *must* pass. You might as well make sure it passes, and we might as well have assurance that it passes these basic tests first. That said, it's more necessary for [new port] and [stage] PRs. It's nice to have on update PRs, which this is. That said, committers will take a tested PR over an untested PR every day of the week. There is a lot of competition for committers' eyes (1500 open PRs!) so it's in your interest to have a good, thoroughly tested PR. If you don't want to test it, don't be surprised if the PR is passed over for newer, tested PRs
Thanks, Carlo and John! I will evaluate new process to my ports and then attach logs. If the patch not yet will be committed of course. This need some time. Until this time I was user of port-mgmt/porttools, seems now time to move to poudriere. But it seems this is a task for automation, I can imagine service that try apply patches from PRs and tests they. Like travis for github.
Created attachment 146610 [details] Build log from poudriere testport
Poudriere build log attached. I think about some automatization of this process (especially for p5-* ports it will be useful to run self-tests and builds with various versions of perl).
Sure, everyone agrees with that. Moving to patch-ready based on test log output.