Re: Please help to fix outdated SUBST blocks

[Greg Troxel <gdt%lexort.com@localhost>]

Roland Illig <roland.illig%gmx.de@localhost> writes:

> On 04.05.2020 20:54, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
>> I'm really, really annoyed by this attitude. We still have month old
>> packages failing due to check-portability.mk inflating the already huge
>> number of broken packages due to the OpenSSL fiasco. Can we please stop
>> adding more unncessary breakage and get the numbers down into a sensible
>> range for at least one mainstream platform? The current signal-to-noise
>> ratio hides too many problems already.
>
> I agree that having the stricter shell portability check generates more
> packages that fail to build.  The point is that before, they succeeded
> to build but under wrong assumptions.  I prefer to have binary packages
> without these easy-to-detect bugs.

I think Joerg's point is that the stricter shell checks should have been
done in a way that was basically

  variable to opt in

  bulk build while opted in to fix all the new issues

  then, make it default

and I also think this would be preferable.   While I share your concern
about undefined and buggy behavior, we've been living with it, and
pkgsrc users are not served by withdrawing packages - only by fixing the
bugs.