Well, if you feel confident that all ports will continue to build if you push this commit, then you have portmgr's approval to go ahead.
If you think it would be better to make sure everything still build, then ask for an exp-run and wait for the result.

With your explanation and seeing the other review, I get it. It would have been nice to have all in the same review, it would have saved me some time trying to figure things out :-)
Please go ahead with both reviews.

In D47380#1083512, @bz wrote:

In D47380#1083399, @mat wrote:

Looking at the spaghetti in Mk, I cannot see if there is some target we can run from the root directory that would run check-license in every port.
But it's probably just adding that target in the targets in bsd.ports.subdir.mk to run the test.

Yes, seems to work and catch cases.

I'll work through them. @mat. Should I add the changes here to the same review or open a separate review for them?

I don't quite understand where the problem is.
Is the fact that there are two / sometime breaks stuff?
If this is actually the case, I'd rather the source of the second / be somewhat fixed.

I'm sorry, I am not quite sure I understand what this is for.
Could you add a small documentation at the top of the file explaining exactly why this is needed, and in which cases one should add USES=sbrk?
Also, maybe in the ignore message, add that it does not take any argument.

This looks sound.
I have only run it in my head though.

I can't spot anything wrong, so

In D39303#1064275, @vishwin wrote:

No, Herald (phab) added it automatically. This has already been exp-ran by both portmgr and myself with no problems. I'm basically acting as Python here but leaving this open for a bit to collect feedback on the CHANGES wording.

Are you waiting for portmgr's approval ?
This file is maintained by python@, so, all you need is an exp-run to make sure everything is fine.

The change is wrong, the code is correct. See sh(1):

I have not needed WITH_DEBUG for a while, thanks.

Something like this

In D46059#1053621, @michaelo wrote:

Anyone else, any objections?

We probably need a message on each list asking to keep it in sync with the two other.

Assuming you tested this, and you probably know better than me what this actually does 😇

make -C dns/bind918 -V USE_PERL5 WITH_DEBUG=yes WITHOUT_DEBUG_PORTS=dns/bind918

Results in "build".
This means that the port still believes that the "debug" feature is enabled, while it is actually disabled by the second knob.

This was reverted.

This was not approved, please revert the commit.