Re: CVS commit: pkgsrc/security/libfido2

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

Jonathan Perkin <jperkin%mnx.io@localhost> writes:

> * On 2023-11-07 at 12:44 GMT, Greg Troxel wrote:
>
>>Do you think we should remove the concept of BROKEN_ON entirely?
>
> I do.  I'm strongly against any attempt to hide legitimate bugs for
> many reasons that I've enumerated in the past, but everyone else
> disagrees.  No surprises there ;)

I guess we call that "rough consensus" in IETF terms.

> IGNORE_BROKEN_ON seems like a reasonable compromise.

I hadn't thought of it until trying to enumerate concerns, but I think
it will allow everybody to have what they want at the same time.  It's
even better, if there is a way to be alerted of
marked-broken-but-builds.

I guess we should see if anybody has problems with IGNORE_BROKEN_ON, but
I don't expect any objections.