On Tue, 27 Aug 2013, Brian Callahan wrote: > On 8/27/2013 3:36 PM, Donovan Watteau wrote: > > The HOMEPAGE for lang/gforth isn't available anymore, so here's an updated > > link (and distinfo). > > > > BTW, is there any sgi/octeon user to test it? A few months ago, I had > > submitted a small patch so that the MIPS backend would compile on > > loongson, but it should work on mips64 as well -- I just don't have the > > hardware to test it. > > > > If it does work, then ONLY_FOR_ARCHS could be updated. > > > > Build/install/'make test' is successful on my sgi, so I'd be ok with adding > mips64 to the arch list.
All right, thanks! So here's an updated diff. Index: Makefile =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/ports/lang/gforth/Makefile,v retrieving revision 1.11 diff -u -p -r1.11 Makefile --- Makefile 11 Mar 2013 11:20:27 -0000 1.11 +++ Makefile 27 Aug 2013 22:16:43 -0000 @@ -1,14 +1,14 @@ # $OpenBSD: Makefile,v 1.11 2013/03/11 11:20:27 espie Exp $ -ONLY_FOR_ARCHS = amd64 i386 mips64el powerpc sparc sparc64 +ONLY_FOR_ARCHS = amd64 i386 mips64 mips64el powerpc sparc sparc64 COMMENT = ANS Standard Forth interpreter and compiler DISTNAME = gforth-0.6.2 -REVISION = 3 +REVISION = 4 CATEGORIES = lang -HOMEPAGE = http://www.jwdt.com/~paysan/gforth.html +HOMEPAGE = http://bernd-paysan.de/gforth.html # GPLv2+ PERMIT_PACKAGE_CDROM = Yes Index: distinfo =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/ports/lang/gforth/distinfo,v retrieving revision 1.1.1.1 diff -u -p -r1.1.1.1 distinfo --- distinfo 25 Oct 2008 10:40:37 -0000 1.1.1.1 +++ distinfo 27 Aug 2013 22:16:43 -0000 @@ -1,5 +1,2 @@ -MD5 (gforth-0.6.2.tar.gz) = hpESvXYrB/xNIDii2ZZRSA== -RMD160 (gforth-0.6.2.tar.gz) = aSqkEuWZVPh6e0QCeQEkj4k56e4= -SHA1 (gforth-0.6.2.tar.gz) = km+urHzMAOhqdJVNx8aTsZ8T5hY= SHA256 (gforth-0.6.2.tar.gz) = KKIBrniwc+81DXrEqCgyMwKcav5gcmIKxt1tsdGS1GI= SIZE (gforth-0.6.2.tar.gz) = 1925536 > The new website suggests there have been some updates to gforth, if you'd like > to go ahead and tackle that too :) Yes, why not. But I just have a very very limited use of gforth, so it'd need some feedback as I'd rather not break it...
