@adridg As you've been sending out regular messages about following the commit message conventions. What do you think?

In R11:f394c284629335d7828c5919f8b220e7d5a4640f#363606, @gerald wrote:

Umm, what's happening?

What kind of audit is required here? Why is an audit required?

Use contemporary terminology

In D30239#679284, @bdrewery wrote:

This isn't simply about host not matching the jail. It's more nuanced. The jail may not match the jail.

Does this change anything about the patch though (which in the end implements a force flag, which isn't nuanced at all)? Would you prefer a different name of the flag that emphasizes that you think this error shouldn't be ignored?

Updated the diff using arcanist, as using raw diff upload the way I did won't get us far.

Updating diff using arcanist

Put some more effort into this...

Minor changes. It's a bit ugly how options are defined and excluded right now,
but it works well enough for someone (hopefully) take it from there.

See also:

Sorry for all the noise, .arcconfig vs. git migration.

Add quoting like in the original template.

Add main branch to .arcconfig (we don't use master)

Prevent extra empty line when ammending.

ping?

In D28369#636198, @carlavilla wrote:

Sorry, I put the comment in spanish hehehehe

Thanks for the patch, but before making the commit to the repo we need to think how to deploy the cgi scripts in the new jail

You can reproduce the problem easily by going to:

In D28354#634399, @carlavilla wrote:

Approved. And commit done. Thanks for that.

@carlavilla This builds now locally, so it can be properly reviewed.

Fix things after incorporating changes that happened in the meantime.

I'll make it build locally first and then re-open...

@swills p.s. Besides the patch being simple, I figured that not calling sed_checked.sh was in line with what is done in case REINPLACE_CMD has been overridden, as changing REINPLACE_ARGS is also a way to alter REINPLACE_CMD.

In D27954#624840, @swills wrote:

In D27954#624793, @swills wrote:

It seems to me, and maybe I'm wrong, that this particular case could have been avoided by checking the output of make makeplist more carefully, it's not perfect, never has been and never will be. Am I missing something?

I am sorry but this is a no. The ports are broken, and the framework is telling you they are, and all you want to do is stop the framework telling you they are broken. If you don't care, just don't build with DEVELOPER set, and everything will be silent again.

In D27954#624718, @mat wrote:

I don't think this is a good idea. Having REINPLACE_ARGS overridable was probably a bad idea, and the ability to change -i is also something that needs to go away.

The change this was based on was backed out in rS363060 to come up with a better strategy. This renders this change pointless, as I assume the next attempt will include this anyway.

@jhb Thanks

In D25488#562868, @imp wrote:

Either of the proposed text changes sound good to me.

Change wording as proposed by 0mp

Screen shot

In D23801#523182, @jbeich wrote:

Michael, does this work fine for you as well?