Bug 243228 - textproc/expat2: Use xz archive, enable "make test", disable examples
Summary: textproc/expat2: Use xz archive, enable "make test", disable examples
Status: New
Alias: None
Product: Ports & Packages
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Individual Port(s) (show other bugs)
Version: Latest
Hardware: Any Any
: --- Affects Only Me
Assignee: freebsd-ports-bugs mailing list
URL:
Keywords: buildisok
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2020-01-09 21:11 UTC by daniel.engberg.lists
Modified: 2020-02-02 14:11 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:
svysh.fbsd: maintainer-feedback-


Attachments
Patch (1.92 KB, patch)
2020-01-09 21:11 UTC, daniel.engberg.lists
no flags Details | Diff
Poudriere log (37.09 KB, text/plain)
2020-01-09 21:12 UTC, daniel.engberg.lists
no flags Details
Patch (1.43 KB, patch)
2020-01-11 22:26 UTC, daniel.engberg.lists
no flags Details | Diff
Poudriere log (37.05 KB, text/plain)
2020-01-11 22:28 UTC, daniel.engberg.lists
no flags Details

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description daniel.engberg.lists 2020-01-09 21:11:28 UTC
Created attachment 210573 [details]
Patch

Update to 2.2.9
Use xz archive instead of bz2
Disable examples as they're not used
Make "make test" work and only build tests if enabled

Feel free to "backport" Makefile changes to 2.2.8 if you still think it's not worth updating to 2.2.9 as mentioned in PR#242215.
Comment 1 daniel.engberg.lists 2020-01-09 21:12:03 UTC
Created attachment 210574 [details]
Poudriere log
Comment 2 Automation User 2020-01-09 21:23:23 UTC
Build info is available at https://gitlab.com/swills/freebsd-ports/pipelines/108228612
Comment 3 Sergei Vyshenski 2020-01-09 22:06:22 UTC
A note from maintainer.

Please consider PR #242215 :
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=242215
Comment 4 daniel.engberg.lists 2020-01-10 23:05:30 UTC
How about staying on the current version, would that be acceptable?
Comment 5 Sergei Vyshenski 2020-01-11 19:50:53 UTC
(In reply to daniel.engberg.lists from comment #4)
If this is a question for me, then could you kindly explain what this question means? What do you call "current version"? The latest commit? Have you read discussion from PR#242215? If you want this port to be updated to any version published by the upstream, and without thinking if it is necessary at all for this particular opsys, they you do it without me. Repeat, I do not approve this patch.
Comment 6 daniel.engberg.lists 2020-01-11 22:26:52 UTC
Created attachment 210639 [details]
Patch

Same as previous except for the version bump
Comment 7 daniel.engberg.lists 2020-01-11 22:28:10 UTC
Created attachment 210640 [details]
Poudriere log
Comment 8 daniel.engberg.lists 2020-01-11 22:30:47 UTC
I apologize for not being clear about it, by current version I was referring to the current version in the ports tree (2.2.8).

Also tested on 13-CURRENT r356392 (AMD64)

Best regards, Daniel
Comment 9 daniel.engberg.lists 2020-01-18 09:04:01 UTC
Friendly ping,
Sergei is the last patch acceptable to you?

Best regards,
Daniel
Comment 10 Sergei Vyshenski 2020-01-18 19:01:11 UTC
You are asking this for the 3-rd time, are you?

Repeat from PR#242215: because of exprun, this port should not be touched unless absolutely necessary. You patch offers changes which are trivial, not needed and not justified, but I have noted your ideas. At the moment working on future version with multiple bug-fixes and multiple new features. In due time I will reconsider your ideas, and maybe reject some of them again.

Let me kindly ask that somebody closes this PR as "rejected" or "not needed".
Comment 11 Warner Losh freebsd_committer 2020-02-02 05:50:39 UTC
So I'm curious, what's so expensive about an exp-run?
And if we're doing one anyway, why not bump the version?

this seems like an overly-rude response to a reasonable request.
Comment 12 Mathieu Arnold freebsd_committer 2020-02-02 08:35:40 UTC
Also, as a side note, an exp-run is required when the version changes, not when doing cosmetic changes to the Makefile.
Comment 13 Sergei Vyshenski 2020-02-02 14:11:25 UTC
(In reply to Warner Losh from comment #11)

1. Let me apologize before any one, for whom my response seems to be rude.

2. About expenses of exp-run. Last time exp-run for this port spotted some problems with a port, which I never had heard about. Then nothing happend for a long time. Then I had to open another PR about this problematic port, invent a solution and suggest the solution to the maintainer of the problematic port. And only after that my initial patch was committed. Since then I am afraid of exp-runs.