Created attachment 318858 [details] app-shells/bash-4.2_p29 build failure Gentoo Prefix lacks a FreeBSD 9.1 profile. Using the 9.0 profile will result in a bootstrap failure in app-shells/bash-4.2_p29 on FreeBSD 9.1-BETA1. Installing app-shells/bash-4.2_p10 works around the problem.
Could we make a profile now and resolve build failures later? It would be much easier to debug this if I did not keep having to workaround the missing profile.
I don't see anything against doing so
1) As pointed out in IRC, I gave permission in Jun 2012 2) I assigned this ticket to Richard for him to resolve. Nothing for prefix team to do here.
(In reply to comment #3) > 1) As pointed out in IRC, I gave permission in Jun 2012 > 2) I assigned this ticket to Richard for him to resolve. > > Nothing for prefix team to do here. Unfortunately, I did not see your response then. Anyway, the profile is committed. I will open a new bug for the bash failure after I have had a little more time to analyze it.
*sigh* I fixed up the mess, since it involves Prefix profiles.
(In reply to comment #5) > *sigh* > > I fixed up the mess, since it involves Prefix profiles. Sorry, that will be the last time I give permission to commit on behalf of prefix team until it is proven that Richard's commits will not create more work for the team (to fix mistakes)
(In reply to comment #6) > (In reply to comment #5) > > *sigh* > > > > I fixed up the mess, since it involves Prefix profiles. > > Sorry, that will be the last time I give permission to commit on behalf of > prefix team until it is proven that Richard's commits will not create more > work for the team (to fix mistakes) The distinction between CHOST=i686-pc-freebsd9.0 and CHOST=i686-pc-freebsd9.1 is entirely cosmetic and the necessity of a new profile is due to a design decision made by the prefix team. At the same time, my commit did fix ./profiles/profiles.desc, which incorrected labelled prefix/bsd/freebsd/9.0/x86 as being x64-freebsd, among others. If I am to take responsibility for a failure to implement a comestic adjustment, who will take responsibility for profiles.desc being incorrect?
gcc/ld will disagree with you whoever did what, I don't care If you feel unsure about something, or doubt what you do is right e.g. because you do it for the first time, just ask, that helps people having to run after you. This is a general complaint not directed at anyone in particular. Prefix is too often thought of as something trivial, but I'm affraid it only is for "insiders". I need quality, high quality (hence I won't merge some packages at the moment, because they lack it), to avoid history repeating itself. In the past, OSX people have injected all kinds of random crap, which lead to a general feeling of rejection towards them among gentoo developers.
(In reply to comment #8) > gcc/ld will disagree with you If this is the case, I would have caught this the following day with latest_tree. I wanted to put this into the tree so that I could avoid having to debug errors created from having to constantly recreate it when making adjustments to the procedure. Anyway, thanks for catching it. It sounds like you prevented me from spending an hour or two debugging this today.
