On 2025-02-28 20:24, Stuart Henderson wrote:
>On 2025/02/27 19:03, Volker Schlecht wrote:
>> MODULES = devel/cmake \
>> + devel/cargo \
>
>any idea if there are users of this on !rust archs?
Well, there's
https://fishshell.com/blog/rustport/index.html
in which the fish shell authors estimate that fish 3.x is running on 2-3 !rust
arch machines out of a quarter million respondents to the Debian popularity
contest.
Difficult to extrapolate from that, though ... we might be more popular on such
archs, users of those archs might me more predisposed to using fish than the
average Debian user, respondents to the Debian popularity contest might find
fish unusually objectionable, etc.
Friday, February 28, 2025
Re: [Update] shells/fish 4.0.0
Am 28. Februar 2025 18:29:42 UTC schrieb Volker Schlecht <openbsd-ports@schlecht.dev>:
>On 2025-02-28 17:54, Florian Viehweger wrote:
>
>> Thank you for beating me to it. I've modified your version, most tests
>> are working now. According to this[1] post, cmake doesn't allow a
>> custom target with the name "test" anymore.
>
>Good catch!
>
>> Comments?
>
>I need to apologize - I just re-read your mail after checking your diff, and
>committing under the assumption that you ok'ed the diff with your additions.
>I only just now realized that you didn't actually ok.
I'm fine with it, sorry for not stating it clearer.
However I'm not in the position to give an actual OK. These should only be given by OpenBSD developers which I am not.
>At a first glance, the test failures appear to be due to the test environment
>however.
That is a good starting point, thank you for the pointer.
--
greetings,
Florian Viehweger
>On 2025-02-28 17:54, Florian Viehweger wrote:
>
>> Thank you for beating me to it. I've modified your version, most tests
>> are working now. According to this[1] post, cmake doesn't allow a
>> custom target with the name "test" anymore.
>
>Good catch!
>
>> Comments?
>
>I need to apologize - I just re-read your mail after checking your diff, and
>committing under the assumption that you ok'ed the diff with your additions.
>I only just now realized that you didn't actually ok.
I'm fine with it, sorry for not stating it clearer.
However I'm not in the position to give an actual OK. These should only be given by OpenBSD developers which I am not.
>At a first glance, the test failures appear to be due to the test environment
>however.
That is a good starting point, thank you for the pointer.
--
greetings,
Florian Viehweger
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)