Created attachment 163719 [details] lang/sbcl Made the port fetch boostrap binaries from sourceforge. This may be not the best way to convert ${ARCH} to their format: .if ${ARCH} == amd64 BOOTARCH= x86-64 .endif .if ${ARCH} == i386 BOOTARCH= x86 .endif For some reason, ".if make(makesum)" does not work. Has this issue https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports-bugs/2015-January/300055.html been resolved? Is it safe to uncomment "THREADS" now?
Created attachment 163720 [details] portlint
Created attachment 163721 [details] poudriere: bootstrap from 1.2.7
Comment on attachment 163719 [details] lang/sbcl Port is unmaintained, implicit approval
No, this patch smells wrong with regard to dragonfly. The bootstrap version changed from 1.2.9 to 1.2.7 and the LOCAL/marino source was stripped off without explanation. I would consider this UNAPPROVED until this is sorted out.
(In reply to John Marino from comment #4) Feel free to take (assign) the issue to resolution. However, maintainer-approval is implicit (thus +) in the absence of a port maintainer (unmaintained). However, maintainer-approval + does not also mean 'patch is ready/good to commit), so feel free to: - Obsolete attachment 163719 [details] with comment - Set needs-patch to signify an updated patch is necessary
I'm not going to obsolete a patch without first uploading a replacement patch, which I don't have. I'm just saying that as it stands how, this patch should not be considered good-to-go yet. 1) The changes to dragonfly need to be explained (I expect this is an error) 2) The patch (or replacement patch) needs to be tested on dragonfly first, which I can do once I hear about #1.
(In reply to John Marino from comment #6) That's fine. I would recommend you take the issue to resolution, in case someone else does. As assignee you have additional discretion (to obsolete, or request new patch, etc)
The reference to LOCAL/marino was stripped because of absence of 1.2.7 there, as well I thought it would be more consistent to fetch binaries directly from authors. Once LOCAL/marino has 1.2.7 binaries, that can be re-added? The change of dragonfly from 1.2.7 is, on the contrary, caused by the absence of 1.2.9 on sourceforge: http://sourceforge.net/projects/sbcl/files/sbcl/1.2.9/. And again, it might be more consistent to have all three platrofms bootstrapped from the same version.
In LICENSE_PERMS I had forgotten "dist-sell pkg-sell".
no, it's clear that the bootstrap versions do not have to match the upcoming target, only that they build it. Example: FreeBSD bootstrap is currently 1.1.0 and builds 1.2.9. Why would I put a lower 1.2.7 in LOCAL/marino when 1.2.9 is already there? this make no sense. Also, where does "sbcl-1.2.7-x86-64-dragonfly-binary.tar.bz2" come from? Who built it? Is it on SF? My recommendation is to keep dragonfly how it was, using the same bootstrap it already was.
The binaries are from here: http://sourceforge.net/projects/sbcl/files/sbcl/1.2.7/ I am not sure who built them. If you insist, I will revert to LOCAL/marino. Recommendation accepted, will change dragonfly bootstrap back.
Thank you Michael, could you update your poudriere log after those changes too please :)
(In reply to Michael Danilov from comment #11) In the future, if the bootstraps are newer than 1.2.9, we can probably safely switch to using the provided SF bootstraps. Until then, I prefer that you use the newer-version bootstrap that I built. DragonFly support on SBCL is pretty recent and I don't know if it's properly supported in 1.2.7.
Created attachment 163745 [details] lang/sbcl reverted bootstraps to LOCAL/marino
Created attachment 163746 [details] portlint
Created attachment 163747 [details] poudriere
Comment on attachment 163745 [details] lang/sbcl Port is unmaintained, implicit approval
Thank you Michael
some of these portlint warnings might be valid.
okay, interesting, you keep the original FreeBSD bootstraps as well. If they still work, why not? It definitely makes the upgrade patch simpler.
You were not very clear about FreeBSD bootstraps. Should I only use LOCAL/marino for Dragonfly?
that's what I had in mind, but I prefer the patch as it currently is. As long as the original bootstraps work, let's keep using them.
okay, when portlint is run with the patch in place, all the warnings left are acceptable. (no changes necessary)
A commit references this bug: Author: marino Date: Wed Dec 2 19:16:50 UTC 2015 New revision: 402845 URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/402845 Log: lang/sbcl: Upgrade version 1.2.9 => 1.3.1 PR: 204942 Submitted by: Michael Danilov Changes: head/lang/sbcl/Makefile head/lang/sbcl/distinfo head/lang/sbcl/files/ head/lang/sbcl/pkg-plist
it built great on DragonFly, thanks!