Page MenuHomeFreeBSD

emulators/wine: Change tested variable for master port detection
ClosedPublic

Authored by salvadore on Apr 2 2020, 4:03 PM.

Details

Summary

Forward r529132 from emulators/wine-devel to emulators/wine.

Diff Detail

Repository
rP FreeBSD ports repository
Lint
Automatic diff as part of commit; lint not applicable.
Unit
Automatic diff as part of commit; unit tests not applicable.

Event Timeline

Sure. Didn't I pre-approve this backport from wine-devel?

In the commit message please refer to the "upstream" (as in wine-devel) commit.

Same Approved by: as in that case. ;-)

And I do recommend we focus on i386-wine-devel and get that one going, and then go about the i386-wine port.
(For example, we cannot exclude for there to arise a need to make other changes to wine-devel in the context of
the i386-wine-devel work, which would then be more churn for the wine port.)

This revision is now accepted and ready to land.Apr 2 2020, 4:46 PM

Sure. Didn't I pre-approve this backport from wine-devel?

Yes, but I am working on many fronts simultaneously and having all approvals on Phabricators, one approval per review, helps me managing better my FreeBSD activities.

In the commit message please refer to the "upstream" (as in wine-devel) commit.

What do you mean by refering to upstream in that case? Would the following commit message work?

emulators/wine: Change tested variable for master port detection

Forward r529132 from emulators/wine-devel to emulators/wine.

It has been observed that the target config-recursive for emulators/i386-wine can cause bsd.port.mk to be included twice when run in i386 jails. This seems to be due to the fact that config-recursive ignores PKGNAMEPREFIX definition, which is used in emulators/wine to test wether bsd.port.[pre|post.]mk needs to be included or bsd.port.mk has already been included by i386-wine. We change the testing variable to WINE_SLAVE_BUILD, defined in i386-wine/Makefile.i386.

And I do recommend we focus on i386-wine-devel and get that one going, and then go about the i386-wine port.
(For example, we cannot exclude for there to arise a need to make other changes to wine-devel in the context of
the i386-wine-devel work, which would then be more churn for the wine port.)

I already decided to follow your recommendation, but that patch is a bugfix: I think bugfixes should be forwarded to i386-wine/wine even if we have not finished the work on i386-wine-devel/wine-devel yet.

In the commit message please refer to the "upstream" (as in wine-devel) commit.

What do you mean by refering to upstream in that case?

wine-devel (as mentioned in parenthesis, hence the quotes :-).

Would the following commit message work?

emulators/wine: Change tested variable for master port detection

Forward r529132 from emulators/wine-devel to emulators/wine.

Yep. Maybe use "Forward port", but not strictly necessary, and I would omit "to emulators/wine" since that is implicit by virtue of the port this is being applied to.

I already decided to follow your recommendation, but that patch is a bugfix: I think bugfixes should be forwarded to i386-wine/wine even if we have not finished the work on i386-wine-devel/wine-devel yet.

Does this fix a bug actually happening? I'm still okay, just pointing out that from a priority perspective.

Does this fix a bug actually happening? I'm still okay, just pointing out that from a priority perspective.

Yep, I just verified the bug :)

Commit coming in a few minutes.