On 22/5/17 3:04 pm, Harry Schmalzbauer wrote:> Bez?glich Harry Schmalzbauer's Nachricht vom 21.05.2017 20:25 (localtime): >> Mk&bsd.ports.mk still tells: >> # PACKAGES - A top level directory where all packages go >> (rather than >> # going locally to each port). >> # Default: ${PORTSDIR}/packages >> >> Since r438901 ( >> https://svnweb.freebsd.org/ports?view=revision&sortby=date&revision=438901 >> ) > Actually, r438058 broke PACKAGES. For the records, see > https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218827 > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-stable at freebsd.org mailing list > https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscribe at freebsd.org" > >has this been unbroken? We use this feature but are not on the head of the tree yet.. not looking forward to moving up and having everything break..
Bez?glich Julian Elischer's Nachricht vom 22.05.2017 09:52 (localtime):> On 22/5/17 3:04 pm, Harry Schmalzbauer wrote: >> Bez?glich Harry Schmalzbauer's Nachricht vom 21.05.2017 20:25 >> (localtime): >>> Mk&bsd.ports.mk still tells: >>> # PACKAGES - A top level directory where all packages go >>> (rather than >>> # going locally to each port). >>> # Default: ${PORTSDIR}/packages >>> >>> Since r438901 ( >>> https://svnweb.freebsd.org/ports?view=revision&sortby=date&revision=438901 >>> >>> ) >> Actually, r438058 broke PACKAGES. For the records, see >> https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218827 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> freebsd-stable at freebsd.org mailing list >> https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable >> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscribe at freebsd.org" >> >> > has this been unbroken? We use this feature but are not on the head of > the tree yet..Nope, not fixed yet and I guess it won't happen, from what I read. Reverting r438901 and r438058 locally is a suitable solution at the moment, but this is going to change soon I fear. The commits seem to be required to make ports pkg/poudriere compatible. -harry
Bez?glich Harry Schmalzbauer's Nachricht vom 22.05.2017 12:51 (localtime):> Bez?glich Julian Elischer's Nachricht vom 22.05.2017 09:52 (localtime): >> On 22/5/17 3:04 pm, Harry Schmalzbauer wrote: >>> Bez?glich Harry Schmalzbauer's Nachricht vom 21.05.2017 20:25 >>> (localtime): >>>> Mk&bsd.ports.mk still tells: >>>> # PACKAGES - A top level directory where all packages go >>>> (rather than >>>> # going locally to each port). >>>> # Default: ${PORTSDIR}/packages >>>> >>>> Since r438901 ( >>>> https://svnweb.freebsd.org/ports?view=revision&sortby=date&revision=438901 >>>> >>>> ) >>> Actually, r438058 broke PACKAGES. For the records, see >>> https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218827 >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> freebsd-stable at freebsd.org mailing list >>> https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable >>> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscribe at freebsd.org" >>> >>> >> has this been unbroken? We use this feature but are not on the head of >> the tree yet.. > Nope, not fixed yet and I guess it won't happen, from what I read. > > Reverting r438901 and r438058 locally is a suitable solution at the > moment, but this is going to change soon I fear. The commits seem to be > required to make ports pkg/poudriere compatible.My assumption was wrong, it has been "fixed" meanwhile ? by emitting PKGFILE with escaped colons. Great, breaks scripts again here. No discussion, no apporovals... I whish someone could migrate ports/Mk into base and freeze it. "make clean" seems to be fundamentally changed with not yet discovered side effects. Local scripts don't work as expected anymore. Great! Take poudriere and unlink -R your own stuff or stay away from ports... I can't believe how ports evolved during the last years :-( -harry