Hi porters,
I received the following output when trying to install something the
other day (not sure what it was):
"/usr/share/mk/bsd.compat.mk", line 35: warning: NOPROFILE is
deprecated in favour of NO_PROFILE
I've included a selected list of possibly affected ports which will
need to be fixed
Hi Stephen,
Thanks for your e-mail.
>Dear Maho,
>
>I see that octave-forge has been broken for quite a while. Do you mind
>if I have a go at redoing it?
Yes - it's been broken. octave-forge has been changed drastically, and
I'm not sure what to do. Therefore I'm really appreciated if you take
"Nakata 真秀" wrote:
> Do you need to be the MAINTAINER?
>
> Thank you,
OK, make me the maintainer.
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Dear Maho,
I see that octave-forge has been broken for quite a while. Do you mind
if I have a go at redoing it?
I presume that you would want to do it meta-port style, that is, lots of
ports with names like octave-forge-plot-1.0.5.
I would be happy to do the work, and I think I could get i
* Torfinn Ingolfsen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > You should REINPLACE_CMD -e '/if test/ s|==|=|' ${WRKSRC}/configure
> I have fixed that now (see attached diff). I also found a similar
> thing in ${WRKSRC}/automake/manpages.am and tried to fix that.
> Are automake files plain sh scripts? I guess
Hi,
On Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 12:13 AM, Dmitry Marakasov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think you should hack configure with REINPLACE_CMD and change
> (configure:4643):
>
> for ac_prog in flex lex
>
> to
>
> for ac_prog in ${LOCALBASE}/flex
OK, if that is the best way, I'll do that.
> Those are b
* Torfinn Ingolfsen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> and it looks like configure pick up the old flex:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] grep flex work/a*/config.log
> configure:4647: checking for flex
> configure:4663: found /usr/bin/flex
> configure:4673: result: flex
> configure:4837: flex conftest.l
> configure
Hi,
The build which triggered this email is done under tinderbox-2.4.3, on
7-STABLE on amd64, with tinderd_flags="-nullfs -plistcheck -onceonly"
and ccache support, with the "official" up-to-date Ports Tree, with the
following vars set:
NOPORTDOCS=yes, NOPORTEXAMPLES=yes, NOPORTDATA=yes, FORCE_
I beat you to it :)
Steve Kargl wrote:
Yes, it's a diff of a diff.
--- patch-apr_hints.m4.orig 2008-08-22 13:31:11.0 -0700
+++ patch-apr_hints.m4 2008-08-22 13:31:30.0 -0700
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
apr-1.3.2/build/apr_hints.m4.orig Wed Oct 27 11:12:28 2004
-+++ apr-1.3.2/buil
Yes, it's a diff of a diff.
--- patch-apr_hints.m4.orig 2008-08-22 13:31:11.0 -0700
+++ patch-apr_hints.m4 2008-08-22 13:31:30.0 -0700
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
apr-1.3.2/build/apr_hints.m4.orig Wed Oct 27 11:12:28 2004
-+++ apr-1.3.2/build/apr_hints.m4 Wed Oct 27 11:25:32 2
Hi,
The build which triggered this email is done under tinderbox-2.4.3, on
7-STABLE on amd64, with tinderd_flags="-nullfs -plistcheck -onceonly"
and ccache support, with the "official" up-to-date Ports Tree, with the
following vars set:
NOPORTDOCS=yes, NOPORTEXAMPLES=yes, NOPORTDATA=yes, FORCE_
Hi,
The build which triggered this email is done under tinderbox-2.4.3, on
7-STABLE on amd64, with tinderd_flags="-nullfs -plistcheck -onceonly"
and ccache support, with the "official" up-to-date Ports Tree, with the
following vars set:
NOPORTDOCS=yes, NOPORTEXAMPLES=yes, NOPORTDATA=yes, FORCE_
Hi,
The build which triggered this email is done under tinderbox-2.4.3, on
7-STABLE on amd64, with tinderd_flags="-nullfs -plistcheck -onceonly"
and ccache support, with the "official" up-to-date Ports Tree, with the
following vars set:
NOPORTDOCS=yes, NOPORTEXAMPLES=yes, NOPORTDATA=yes, FORCE_
Hi,
The build which triggered this email is done under tinderbox-2.4.3, on
7-STABLE on amd64, with tinderd_flags="-nullfs -plistcheck -onceonly"
and ccache support, with the "official" up-to-date Ports Tree, with the
following vars set:
NOPORTDOCS=yes, NOPORTEXAMPLES=yes, NOPORTDATA=yes, FORCE_
FWIW;
One of the projects in COIN-OR found it unacceptable to ifdef malloc.h with
__STDC__. The reason is that other systems, especically AIX, use malloc.h for
non standard malloc-related functions, and including malloc.h had no ill effect
on other platforms. At the end they ifndef'ed it for __
Hi;
This was fixed long ago .. it was a bug in bsd.port.mk, not in the port.
I did send a reminder to the committer that labeled it as broken but he forgot
to fix it.
Feel free to send a PR.
Pedro.
__
Do You Yahoo!?
Poco spazio e tanto spam? Yah
Hi,
The build which triggered this email is done under tinderbox-2.4.3, on
7-STABLE on amd64, with tinderd_flags="-nullfs -plistcheck -onceonly"
and ccache support, with the "official" up-to-date Ports Tree, with the
following vars set:
NOPORTDOCS=yes, NOPORTEXAMPLES=yes, NOPORTDATA=yes, FORCE_
On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 10:03:21 -0400, Etienne Robillard wrote
> Is anyone experimenting problems building sysutils/lsof in 8.0-
> CURRENT ? It seems for me that this port is currently broken, but I
> wanted to gather some inputs before submitting a problem-report.
Yes this is a known problem. No n
Hi,
Is anyone experimenting problems building sysutils/lsof in 8.0-CURRENT ?
It seems for me that this port is currently broken, but I wanted to gather
some inputs before submitting a problem-report.
Here is the compilation result:
===> Building for lsof-4.81A,2
(cd lib; make DEBUG="-O2" CFGF
Hello,
On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 2:58 PM, Dmitry Marakasov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'll check this out in couple of days. Usually what you do is send-pr
> the patch - this way it's easier to track who's responsible for
> procesing it.
I know about send-pr :) And I intend to snd-pr the patch, b
* Torfinn Ingolfsen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > Port system does not install man pages for you. This should be done
> > by the build scripts in the distribution tarball. You should probably look
> > at
> > various Makefiles* and/or configure script.
> Yes, I know. I have looked at the variou
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 03:39:53PM -0400, Ken Smith wrote:
>
> Proposed schedule highlights:
>
> Freeze 8/29 [1]
> BETA9/1 [1]
> Branch 9/6 [1],[2]
> 6.4-RC1 9/8
> 7.1-RC1 9/15
> 6.4-RC2 9/22 [3]
> 7.1
Cherokee-0.8.1 is now in the tree as www/cherokee-devel. This is a
major release, now with full docs and an admin interface. If there
are no major problems it will move to the main version soon.
=
Cherokee 0.8.1 released
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008, Thomas Hummel wrote:
> for some long time now, gcc34 doesn't build on FreeBSD 7.0-STABLE
> (GENERIC kernel) amd64 :
This is the first and only report on this I have ever seen, including
the (successful) builds on the FreeBSD build cluster.
FreeBSD versions as old as this ver
Hi,
The build which triggered this email is done under tinderbox-2.4.3, on
7-STABLE on amd64, with tinderd_flags="-nullfs -plistcheck -onceonly"
and ccache support, with the "official" up-to-date Ports Tree, with the
following vars set:
NOPORTDOCS=yes, NOPORTEXAMPLES=yes, NOPORTDATA=yes, FORCE_
25 matches
Mail list logo
