Here we go again: mplayer 1.0 rc2, please test
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Hi, Works fine on -current/amd64. CFLAGS=-DNDEBUG -O2 -pipe -fno-strict-aliasing WITHOUT_DEBUG=yes WITHOUT_RTCPU=yes WITHOUT_MENCODER=yes Best Regards, - -- Hyogeol Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHQFcQ1D7/GiH6QSERCpQ+AJ0WN2dnOtIvpoxAHS6guEM3TvLkTgCfToau OUe4+9j38KTc+OTaDjUxWwM= =tGyV -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Here we go again: mplayer 1.0 rc2, please test
Thomas Zander píše v ne 18. 11. 2007 v 14:41 +0800: http://www.rrr.de/~riggs/mplayer/m20071118.tar.bz2 includes all the suggestions and fixes I have received so far, including Jung-uk Kim's solution to enable amd64 builds again. Looks good here. -- Pav Lucistnik [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] KDE is for the techies who feel they can't be productive without being able to control the exact amount of bevel in their window frames in 2% increments. signature.asc Description: Toto je digitálně podepsaná část zprávy
Re: ports/117266: New port: www/linux-netscape-navigator The All-New Netscape Navigator 9.0
Andrew Pantyukhin wrote: On Fri, Nov 16, 2007 at 03:32:44PM +0100, Pietro Cerutti wrote: The browser-prefs.js file indeed isn't part of the tarball, but gets anyway installed on my system: pkg_info -W /usr/local/lib/linux-netscape-navigator/defaults/pref/browser-prefs.js /usr/local/lib/linux-netscape-navigator/defaults/pref/browser-prefs.js was installed by package linux-netscape-navigator-9.0.0.3 The port uses the infrastructure provided by /usr/ports/www/linux-seamonkey/Makefile.common, as all other linux-gecko ports do. I think the cause is to be searched inside that file. Yep, look at the post-patch target. I can't say if that should be disabled for netscape until I examine the browser a bit deeper, but I will. In the meantime, could you please provide a complete shar or tarball of the latest version in any form. Here's the tarball for 9.0.0.3: http://www.gahr.ch/FreeBSD/patches/117266_linux-netscape-navigator-9.0.0.3.tar.bz2 Thanks! -- Pietro Cerutti PGP Public Key: http://gahr.ch/pgp signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
stlport
I am trying to get the devel/stlport to work on FreeBSD 7.0. A start is to add the line USE_GCC=3.4 in the appropriate place in the Makefile, but then it becomes clear that some additional change is needed to stlport/config/stl_gcc.h. This file is the most convoluted mess of #if's I have ever seen. The attached patch works on my particular system, but clearly it is a fudge and won't be universal to other situations. Is anyone working on this? If not, would you guys be kind enough to make my patch more proper? Thanks, Stephen --- stlport/config/stl_gcc.h.orig 2003-11-02 02:59:11.0 -0600 +++ stlport/config/stl_gcc.h2007-11-18 20:45:20.0 -0600 @@ -7,11 +7,20 @@ # define _STLP_USE_GLIBC #endif +#if !defined(__FreeBSD__) || (defined(__FreeBSD__) (__FreeBSD_cc_version 530001)) # define _STLP_NO_MEMBER_TEMPLATE_KEYWORD +#endif + -# if defined(__FreeBSD__) || defined (__hpux) || defined(__amigaos__) || ( defined(__OS2__) defined(__EMX__) ) +#if defined (__hpux) || defined(__amigaos__) || ( defined(__OS2__) defined(__EMX__) ) +# define _STLP_NO_WCHAR_T +#elif defined(__FreeBSD__) +# if (__FreeBSD_cc_version 55) # define _STLP_NO_WCHAR_T -# endif +# else +# define _STLP_FREEBSD_HAS_WFUNCS +# endif /* __FreeBSD_cc_version 55 */ +#endif #ifdef __USLC__ # include config/stl_sco.h @@ -81,7 +90,7 @@ # endif -#if defined (__CYGWIN__) || defined (__MINGW32__) || !(defined (_STLP_USE_GLIBC) || defined (__sun)) +#if defined (__CYGWIN__) || defined (__MINGW32__) || !(defined (_STLP_USE_GLIBC) || defined (_STLP_FREEBSD_HAS_WFUNCS) || defined (__sun)) #ifndef __MINGW32__ # define _STLP_NO_NATIVE_MBSTATE_T 1 #endif @@ -267,12 +276,15 @@ # define _STLP_NATIVE_INCLUDE_PATH ../g++-v3 # define _STLP_NATIVE_OLD_STREAMS_INCLUDE_PATH ../g++-v3/backward # else -# if defined(__GNUC_PATCHLEVEL__) (__GNUC_PATCHLEVEL__ 0) +# if defined(__GNUC_PATCHLEVEL__) (__GNUC_PATCHLEVEL__ 0) !defined(__FreeBSD__) # define _STLP_NATIVE_INCLUDE_PATH ../__GNUC__.__GNUC_MINOR__.__GNUC_PATCHLEVEL__ # define _STLP_NATIVE_OLD_STREAMS_INCLUDE_PATH ../__GNUC__.__GNUC_MINOR__.__GNUC_PATCHLEVEL__/backward # else -# define _STLP_NATIVE_INCLUDE_PATH ../__GNUC__.__GNUC_MINOR__ -# define _STLP_NATIVE_OLD_STREAMS_INCLUDE_PATH ../__GNUC__.__GNUC_MINOR__/backward +# define tempi386 i386 +# undef i386 +# define _STLP_NATIVE_INCLUDE_PATH /usr/local/lib/gcc/i386-portbld-freebsd7.0/3.4.6/include/c++ +# define _STLP_NATIVE_OLD_STREAMS_INCLUDE_PATH /usr/local/lib/gcc/i386-portbld-freebsd7.0/3.4.6/include/c++ +# define i386 tempi386 # endif # endif @@ -371,6 +383,6 @@ # define _STLP_STATIC_TEMPLATE_DATA 1 # endif - +#define _STLP_NO_MEMBER_TEMPLATE_CLASSES ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: stlport
Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote: I am trying to get the devel/stlport to work on FreeBSD 7.0. A start is to add the line USE_GCC=3.4 in the appropriate place in the Makefile, but then it becomes clear that some additional change is needed to stlport/config/stl_gcc.h. This file is the most convoluted mess of #if's I have ever seen. The attached patch works on my particular system, but clearly it is a fudge and won't be universal to other situations. Is anyone working on this? If not, would you guys be kind enough to make my patch more proper? Thanks, Stephen Just to clarify, the appropriate bits I added were: +# define tempi386 i386 +# undef i386 +# define _STLP_NATIVE_INCLUDE_PATH /usr/local/lib/gcc/i386-portbld-freebsd7.0/3.4.6/include/c++ +# define _STLP_NATIVE_OLD_STREAMS_INCLUDE_PATH /usr/local/lib/gcc/i386-portbld-freebsd7.0/3.4.6/include/c++ +# define i386 tempi386 and +#define _STLP_NO_MEMBER_TEMPLATE_CLASSES ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ports modifying system setups
I was wondering why ports apparently aren't allowed an obvious freedom, that of being able to set themselves to run as daemons. A greate long time past, I seem to remember that there used to be a file /usr/local/etc/rc.local, which (if it existed) would be automatically sourced in at the end of rc.conf. Ports which built daemons were allowed (well, actually, expected) to ask the user if they wished to activate the port, and if so, the port would add a line of the form 'portname_enable=YES', and this would make your new port operate. Well, it seems from what I see of my new system, that this is no longer the case. I could understand (and approve of) ports not being allowed to modify any /etc/contents, but howcome ports can't use this rather obvious workaround? I'm pretty sure this used to be allowed... and it seems like a good policy to me, from the number of non-technical folks who now run FreeBSD. I just wanted to know why its not anymore. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ports modifying system setups
On Sun, Nov 18, 2007 at 08:17:36PM -0500, Chuck Robey wrote: activate the port, and if so, the port would add a line of the form 'portname_enable=YES', and this would make your new port operate. Well, it seems from what I see of my new system, that this is no longer the case. I could understand (and approve of) ports not being allowed to modify any /etc/contents, but howcome ports can't use this rather obvious workaround? I don't recall this behaviour at all, I think you're confused with the messages which ports print at the end of the install-phase which say Add 'foo_enable=YES' to your /etc/rc.conf to enable this port. Edwin -- Edwin Groothuis |Personal website: http://www.mavetju.org [EMAIL PROTECTED]| Weblog: http://www.mavetju.org/weblog/ ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ports modifying system setups
Also a good thing to point out is that portupgrade can be configured to automatically start or stop a port's daemon via it's /usr/local/etc/rc.d script, which still relies on having the appropriate line in /etc/rc.conf to tell the rc.d script to run, but it is helpful for upgrading ports which have daemons so they can be shut down and then started again after the upgrade is complete. Naram Qashat Chuck Robey wrote: I was wondering why ports apparently aren't allowed an obvious freedom, that of being able to set themselves to run as daemons. A greate long time past, I seem to remember that there used to be a file /usr/local/etc/rc.local, which (if it existed) would be automatically sourced in at the end of rc.conf. Ports which built daemons were allowed (well, actually, expected) to ask the user if they wished to activate the port, and if so, the port would add a line of the form 'portname_enable=YES', and this would make your new port operate. Well, it seems from what I see of my new system, that this is no longer the case. I could understand (and approve of) ports not being allowed to modify any /etc/contents, but howcome ports can't use this rather obvious workaround? I'm pretty sure this used to be allowed... and it seems like a good policy to me, from the number of non-technical folks who now run FreeBSD. I just wanted to know why its not anymore. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
octave-forge on FreeBSD 7.0
Dear Maho,
I noticed that you added lines like:
.if ${OSVERSION} = 700042
.if ${ARCH} == amd64 || ${ARCH} == sparc64
BROKEN= Does not compile with GCC 4.2
.endif
.endif
to the Makefile of math/octave-forge. But it also doesn't build on my
i386 FreeBSD 7.0 machine.
How about doing something more simple like:
.if ${OSVERSION} = 700042
USE_GCC=3.4
.endif
which works great in my situation.
Stephen
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: octave-forge on FreeBSD 7.0
Dear portmgr@ and Stephen
Portmgr@:
Stephen Montgomery-Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]
reported that applying following patch will unbreak
for FBSD7. Could you please approve my commit?
Index: Makefile
===
RCS file: /home/pcvs/ports/math/octave-forge/Makefile,v
retrieving revision 1.19
diff -u -r1.19 Makefile
--- Makefile1 Oct 2007 09:34:23 - 1.19
+++ Makefile19 Nov 2007 04:22:31 -
@@ -36,9 +36,7 @@
.include bsd.port.pre.mk
.if ${OSVERSION} = 700042
-.if ${ARCH} == amd64 || ${ARCH} == sparc64
-BROKEN=Does not compile with GCC 4.2
-.endif
+USE_GCC= 3.4
.endif
GNU_HOST= ${ARCH}-portbld-freebsd${OSREL}
cvs diff: Diffing files
From: Stephen Montgomery-Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: octave-forge on FreeBSD 7.0
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 21:45:15 -0600
Stephen:
I noticed that you added lines like:
.if ${OSVERSION} = 700042
.if ${ARCH} == amd64 || ${ARCH} == sparc64
BROKEN= Does not compile with GCC 4.2
.endif
.endif
No, linimon added :)
Revision 1.19: download - view: text, markup, annotated - select for diffs
Mon Oct 1 09:34:23 2007 UTC (6 weeks, 6 days ago) by linimon
Branches: MAIN
CVS tags: HEAD
Diff to: previous 1.18: preferred, colored
Changes since revision 1.18: +4 -2 lines
Mark as broken with gcc4.2 on 64-bit archs. While here, remove obsolete
cruft.
to the Makefile of math/octave-forge. But it also doesn't build on my
i386 FreeBSD 7.0 machine.
:(
How about doing something more simple like:
.if ${OSVERSION} = 700042
USE_GCC= 3.4
.endif
which works great in my situation.
Thanks for your report. I ask portmgr@ for commit approval.
Thanks,
-- Nakata Maho ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: stlport
Le Lun 19 nov 07 à 3:56:50 +0100, Stephen Montgomery-Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] écrivait : Is anyone working on this? If not, would you guys be kind enough to make my patch more proper? I'm working on a patch to upgrade it to the latest STLport-5.1.4 (from http://www.stlport.org/ ). Regards, -- Th. Thomas. pgpKgUxMmunYA.pgp Description: PGP signature
