> http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-ports&w=2&r=1&s=amd64+tightvnc&q=b > <http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-ports&w=2&r=1&s=amd64+tightvnc&q=b> > leads to http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-ports&m=117870619707572&w=2 > <http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-ports&m=117870619707572&w=2> > which is your patches updated to run on -current as of then (i.e. > 4.2, near enough).
Do'h. The search engine I used must not have been searching message bodies. > I'd be happy for the amd64 fix to go in, but I'd like some way > to avoid the current situation of building a broken sparc64 > tightvnc-1.xx.tgz before I ask another committer for an ok. I wish I knew the ports build framework better, so I could help with your question. But I'd rather have one broken port (sparc64) rather than two (sparc64 and amd64). Like you, I really only see this as a stop-gap measure until Xf4vnc is ready.
