On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 5:11 AM, Rainer Hurling wrote:
> On 04.04.2010 13:24 (UTC+1), Garrett Cooper wrote:
>>
>> On 3/26/10, Robert Watson wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, 22 Mar 2010, Xin LI wrote:
>>>
A MFC of this update is planned, but we will have to make some rather
aggressive changes again
On 04.04.2010 13:24 (UTC+1), Garrett Cooper wrote:
On 3/26/10, Robert Watson wrote:
On Mon, 22 Mar 2010, Xin LI wrote:
A MFC of this update is planned, but we will have to make some rather
aggressive changes against the library and more testing.
Please make sure that you have at least libxml
On 3/26/10, Robert Watson wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Mar 2010, Xin LI wrote:
>
>> A MFC of this update is planned, but we will have to make some rather
>> aggressive changes against the library and more testing.
>>
>> Please make sure that you have at least libxml2-2.7.6_2 in your ports tree
>>
>> before
Xin LI writes:
> Applications aiming to be portable should not define _LARGEFILE64_SOURCE
> at all, on any *BSD platforms.
nor on Linux.
DES
--
Dag-Erling Smørgrav - d...@des.no
___
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mai
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
On 2010/04/02 14:32, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> 2010/4/2 Mark Linimon :
>> On Thu, Apr 01, 2010 at 03:30:47PM +0200, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
>>> And yes, I *will* keep harping on this until people Get It.
>>
>> You're harping at the wrong people.
2010/4/2 Mark Linimon :
> On Thu, Apr 01, 2010 at 03:30:47PM +0200, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
>> And yes, I *will* keep harping on this until people Get It.
>
> You're harping at the wrong people. Complain to the application authors,
> not to the poor slobs trying to maintain the ports collection
Mark Linimon writes:
> Probably 75%+ of the application authors neither know nor care that
> their code is being run on anything other than Linux.
I think you missed the bit where what they're doing is wrong on Linux,
too.
DES
--
Dag-Erling Smørgrav - d...@des.no
___
On Thu, Apr 01, 2010 at 03:30:47PM +0200, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
> And yes, I *will* keep harping on this until people Get It.
You're harping at the wrong people. Complain to the application authors,
not to the poor slobs trying to maintain the ports collection.
There's a lot of crap code ou
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 9:30 PM, Xin LI wrote:
> Hi, Tom,
>
> On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 12:59 PM, Tom Uffner wrote:
> [...]
>> i realize this. i was just adding to the list of ports that no longer
>> build after this change. ghostscript is kind of important for print
>> support.
>>
>> i doubt this is
Hi, Tom,
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 12:59 PM, Tom Uffner wrote:
[...]
> i realize this. i was just adding to the list of ports that no longer
> build after this change. ghostscript is kind of important for print
> support.
>
> i doubt this is "right" either, but it is a quick & dirty way to
> make mp
Xin LI writes:
> Tom Uffner writes:
> > Michael Butler writes:
> > > This breaks most (if not all) of the QT4-dependent ports for the
> > > lack of a definition of "off64_t".
> > it also breaks multimedia/mplayer, graphics/ImageMagick, and
> > print/ghostscript8 & everything that depends on it.
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 12:59 PM, Tom Uffner wrote:
> Xin LI wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 6:56 PM, Tom Uffner wrote:
>>>
>>> Michael Butler wrote:
>>>
This breaks most (if not all) of the QT4-dependent ports for the lack of
a definition of "off64_t".
>>>
>>> it also breaks multim
Xin LI wrote:
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 6:56 PM, Tom Uffner wrote:
Michael Butler wrote:
This breaks most (if not all) of the QT4-dependent ports for the lack of
a definition of "off64_t".
it also breaks multimedia/mplayer, graphics/ImageMagick, and
print/ghostscript8 & everything that depend
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 6:56 PM, Tom Uffner wrote:
> Michael Butler wrote:
>
>> This breaks most (if not all) of the QT4-dependent ports for the lack of
>> a definition of "off64_t".
>
> it also breaks multimedia/mplayer, graphics/ImageMagick, and
> print/ghostscript8 & everything that depends on
Michael Butler wrote:
This breaks most (if not all) of the QT4-dependent ports for the lack of
a definition of "off64_t".
it also breaks multimedia/mplayer, graphics/ImageMagick, and
print/ghostscript8 & everything that depends on it.
___
freebsd-cur
Michael Butler writes:
> This breaks most (if not all) of the QT4-dependent ports for the lack of
> a definition of "off64_t".
They should not use off64_t. More importantly, they should not rely on
zlib to provide it.
DES
--
Dag-Erling Smørgrav - d...@des.no
___
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/22/10 17:27, Xin LI wrote:
> Just a heads-up that zlib in base system (libz) has been updated to
> 1.2.4. We tried to keep -HEAD as close as possible to the vendor
> version, but there is some changes in its internal data structure, and
> we did
On Mon, 22 Mar 2010, Xin LI wrote:
A MFC of this update is planned, but we will have to make some rather
aggressive changes against the library and more testing.
Please make sure that you have at least libxml2-2.7.6_2 in your ports tree
before even thinking about updating your ports tree. Ol
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
Just a heads-up that zlib in base system (libz) has been updated to
1.2.4. We tried to keep -HEAD as close as possible to the vendor
version, but there is some changes in its internal data structure, and
we did not use versioned symbols in the pa
19 matches
Mail list logo
