On 1/9/06, Arnaud Bergeron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 1/9/06, Bryan Irvine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 12/31/05, Arnaud Bergeron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Here is a updated tarball of my netatalk-2.0.3 port.
> > >
> > > It is a tarball rather than a diff because I have trouble diffing my
> > > port against what is in cvs.
> > >
> > > I did some changes according to private comments from Ian McWilliam.
> > > Primarly patches.
> > >
> > > Tested on i386, would need testing especially on 64bit archs (amd64 ,
> > > alpha).
> >
> > Here's the output I get on a i386 machine.
> >
> > # make
> > ===> netatalk-2.0.3 depends on: libtool-1.5.18p2 - found
> > ===> netatalk-2.0.3 depends on: db.4 (db-*) - found
> > ===> Checking files for netatalk-2.0.3
> > `/usr/ports/distfiles/netatalk-2.0.3.tar.gz' is up to date.
> > >> Checksum OK for netatalk-2.0.3.tar.gz. (sha1)
> > ===> Extracting for netatalk-2.0.3
> > ===> Patching for netatalk-2.0.3
> > ===> Ignoring patchfile patch-bin_megatron_nad_c.orig
> > ===> Ignoring patchfile patch-bin_psorder_psorder_c.orig
> > Ignoring previously applied (or reversed) patch.
> > 1 out of 1 hunks ignored--saving rejects to etc/afpd/afp_asp.c.rej
> > ***> patch-etc_afpd_afp_asp_c did not apply cleanly
> > ===> Ignoring patchfile patch-etc_afpd_directory_c.orig
> > ===> Ignoring patchfile patch-etc_afpd_mangle_c.orig
> > ===> Ignoring patchfile patch-etc_afpd_volume_c.orig
> > ===> Ignoring patchfile patch-etc_cnid_dbd_cnid_metad_c.orig
> > ===> Ignoring patchfile patch-etc_papd_main_c.orig
> > ===> Ignoring patchfile patch-etc_papd_ppd_c.orig
> > *** Error code 1
> >
> > Stop in /root/netatalk (line 1705 of
> > /usr/ports/infrastructure/mk/bsd.port.mk).
> >
> Sorry about that, I just realized I created a patch for a file I
> edited by mistake. I wonder why my test build did alright but I got
> the error too, The fix is simple: remove
> patch-etc_afpd_afp_asp_c.patch from the patch folder
>
> For the others, yet another tarball with this problem fixed (and, I
> hope, no more to fix). As always, please test on 64 bit archs.
>
> Arnaud
>
>
