Re: Combining NOT_FOR_* and BROKEN_ON_*

To: tech-pkg%netbsd.org@localhost, David Holland <dholland-pkgtech%netbsd.org@localhost>
Subject: Re: Combining NOT_FOR_* and BROKEN_ON_*
From: Jonathan Perkin <jperkin%pkgsrc.org@localhost>
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2025 10:29:52 +0100

* On 2025-04-03 at 10:10 BST, Edgar Fuß wrote:

and one is in my opinion completely unreasonable (there is some build issue
and so I'm going to mark it so that nobody can see what the build issue is
any more, thus making it harder for someone to actually fix,

What do you suggest for the case a package used to build/work on NetBSD,
but now doesn't any more because upstream switched to relying on some
undefined behaviour being the Linux way?
So, in essence, "upstream broke it and we can't reasonably fix it".


I'd ask my favourite question:

"What problem are you actually trying to solve?"

My opinion is that BROKEN* is a solution looking for a problem, and I'veyet to hear a reason why having it makes pkgsrc better.


--
Jonathan Perkin                    pkgsrc.smartos.org
Open Source Complete Cloud   www.tritondatacenter.com

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Combining NOT_FOR_* and BROKEN_ON_*
  - From: David Holland
- Re: Combining NOT_FOR_* and BROKEN_ON_*
  - From: Edgar Fuß
- Re: Combining NOT_FOR_* and BROKEN_ON_*
  - From: Thomas Klausner

References:
- Combining NOT_FOR_* and BROKEN_ON_*
  - From: Thomas Klausner
- Re: Combining NOT_FOR_* and BROKEN_ON_*
  - From: David Holland
- Re: Combining NOT_FOR_* and BROKEN_ON_*
  - From: Jonathan Perkin
- Re: Combining NOT_FOR_* and BROKEN_ON_*
  - From: Edgar Fuß

Prev by Date: Re: Combining NOT_FOR_* and BROKEN_ON_*
Next by Date: Re: Combining NOT_FOR_* and BROKEN_ON_*
Previous by Thread: Re: Combining NOT_FOR_* and BROKEN_ON_*
Next by Thread: Re: Combining NOT_FOR_* and BROKEN_ON_*
Indexes:

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index