David Holland <dholland-pkgtech%netbsd.org@localhost> writes: > I'm not especially happy with the name BROKEN_EXCEPT_ON_PLATFORM; it > could be WORKS_ON_PLATFORM, but (a) I'd kind of rather have the word > BROKEN in it, and (b) that's too affirmative (not broken is not the > same thing as known to be working...) and so far I can't think of > anything else. Do you have an example for this? It seems to me that there are some packages whose upstreams document that they only work on a limited number of platforms; those should be SKIPped on other platforms. Or perhaps the documentation is implicit. For BROKEN, it seems there is a notion that in an ideal world it would work but it hasn't been debugged. So people would add platforms, maybe with a comments, as they find cases. So I don't see when BROKEN_EXCEPT_ON_PLATFORM would make sense. About compilers: I agree with Edgar that there is a distinction between needing features a compiler doesn't provide and running into bugs. But it could also be that specifying required compilers is part of a different infrastructure (which needs an overhaul, but that's separate), and the BROKEN mechanism only about bugs. (Other than that, your notion sounds good to me.)
Attachment:
pgp6ht6YxfdUJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature