On 12 Feb 2012 21:37, "Steve Kargl" <s...@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 03:32:52PM -0600, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote: > > > > > >But, the 2nd issue with too many arguments in a function call is > > >clearly evident on amd64 because I justed test that on FreeBSD 10. > > > > Yes. But the issue isn't whether someone else was correct in why the > > port might or might not have built in a particular environment. > > > > The issue is whether you were too hasty in your initial accusation that > > the committer didn't test their commit. And another issue is whether > > you should apologize to them for attempting to publicly humiliate them. > > > > I've now tested on i386 and amd64, and the port fails > to build on both architectures. Given the code for the > malloc.h failure, this port will fail on all non-amd64 > platforms that freebsd runs (dating back FreeBSD 5.0). > The evidence suggests that this commit was not tested.
Whatever. Others have pointed out that they can't reproduce your error, so save the posturing, and get a PR in. Thank you. Chris _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
