[clc-devel] Build results

Victor victord at jafa.homeip.net
Sun May 23 07:02:53 UTC 2004


Simone Rota wrote:
> Hi everybody,
> 
> many of the CLC maintainers already know that at
> http://www.varlock.com/clcuild/ there's a summary of
> the automated build process for clc ports.
> 
> First of all, congratulations to all maintainers,
> I got 356 ok / 47 failed,
> last time (crux 1.3) we had 306 / 240, I think
> this is a symptom the quality of ports is raising up.

See, that's cause mine weren't included. I take the curve down! ;)

Well, problem is I will not be able to update my server to 2.0 for at 
least a week or two, since I got live mail, dns, web, etc. etc on it and 
just don't have downtime for it right now.

So if anyone can go out of their way and test the following ports (after 
doing ports -u):

gtk-engines-bluecurve
gtk-engines-mist
gtk-engines-thinice (Robert, I took over this one to complete the set)
gtk-engines-xfce

postfix
stunnel
syslog-ng
xautolock
icewm
spamassassin
mawk
mrtg
xblast
xsoldier

I still have to fix these two:
  gtk-engines-cleanice (wants gtk 2.4.x, I got 2.2.4)
  gtk-engines-smooth (something is wrong)


I am thinking in a week or two, to start looking at ports that weren't 
tagged 2.0, to see if there are any I can adopt (if they matter).

Problems: Since 1_3 is a branch, what do we do with gtk2-* ports? I 
really think the cvs tree is getting a little dirty with old names. Can 
we make a leap with 2.0 and make it its own branch too and clean out the 
crud?

I am concerned that with every update, we lose ports that people no 
longer maintain. I really feel we got to create an automated list 
generation of abandoned ports so people can "adopt" them if they're 
interested. Here is current way to find untagged ports:

#!/bin/bash
CVSDIR=/home/$USER/PORTS/clc ### <<< UPDATE THIS LINE
find $CVSDIR /usr/ports/{contrib,unmaintained} -type d \
      -maxdepth 1 -printf "%f\n"| \
      grep -v CVS | sort | uniq -u

I think having 2.0 as a separate list can allow us to quickly find 
abandoned ports and have a clean start for the 2.x series.

What do you guys think?

Also, and I guess I'll get kicked for this, but I didn't ask before I 
did, so maybe I did wrong, but when I set up gtk-engines-* ports, I 
assumed, since 1.3 is a branch, that we didn't need gtk2-engines-* any 
more, and I removed them. Was that a bad thing? If it was, I guess I can 
recover them, but... I noticed gtk2 was still there... so... should I 
return gtk2-engines-* or not care?

Victor



More information about the crux-devel mailing list