Re: git: 25e6f68a6661 - main - textproc/libxml2: Update to 2.11.6

Daniel Engberg wrote:
> On 2024-01-13T09:02:35.000+01:00, Gleb Popov <arrowd@freebsd.org> wrote:
> 
>     On Sat, Jan 13, 2024 at 8:14 AM Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@freebsd.org
>     <mailto:danfe@freebsd.org>> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>         Wait, what? You've just removed the comment which tells to NOT
>         use the
>         dreaded CMake and made the switch without logging any rationale?
>         CMake
>         in such low-sitting in dependency tree port is a PITA for many
>         people,
>         please don't push it down our throats as you've been repeatedly
>         asked by
>         other fellow developers.
> 
>         ./danfe
> 
> 
>     I admit that there is no rationale for the switch in the commit
>     message. But at the same time, reducing build times for Ports
>     consumers has much lower priority for us than actually updating
>     software.
>     Daniel made sure that the switch doesn't cause circular dependencies
>     which was a problem before. Because of that I approved the change,
>     just for the sake of the "updating" part.
> 
>     Daniel is not being paid for this work, so if he's more comfortable
>     with CMake (which I wholeheartedly understand!) it is a sufficient
>     rationale for the switch. I believe no one will be against if you
>     prepare a patch that will switch back to autotools and do the same
>     amount of testing (500+ ports) that Daniel did.
> 
I will be doing exactly this for the 2.12 update. Already have a WIP.
> Hi,
> 
> I want to add a few things that weren't in the commit message but that's 
> been discussed and mentioned in the bugs report(s) and elsewhere.
> 
> Local patches are a pain, no one has upstreamed patches for years and 
> there's seemingly little to no interest in doing so. For a single 
> committer that might not be much of an issue but it adds a overall 
> maintenance burden and that specific maintainer/committer will not be 
> around forever. As a community we've reported issues upstream, issues 
> have been fixed and upstreamed patches. This by far a better success 
> story than previously. It isn't perfect but it is in better shape than 
> before and people are willing to contribute. There are more improvments 
> upstream which be in later releases too.
> 
Until upstream specifically declares and recommends CMake as ready for 
Unix-like systems in at least their documentation, nothing else is relevant.

-- 
Charlie Li
...nope, still don't have an exit line.