Thanks for the patch, but it does not work properly. There is also a
freebsd[123]* a.out detector which needs to be disabled as well,
otherwise only (for example) a libiconv.so.3.0 appears, no libiconv.so.3
or libiconv.so symlink.
In addition, the below patch is for bsd.port.mk in the src
* Jilles Tjoelker jil...@stack.nl, 20111002 18:23:
The proper fix is indeed in autotools, but I think it is inappropriate
to keep head effectively frozen until this problem can be fixed
properly.
What I think is even a bigger disgrace, is that we haven't even added
the autotools fixes to our
On 2011-Sep-30 17:10:20 -0400, Jim Trigg jtr...@spamcop.net wrote:
I have to admit that my reaction is not so much Why won't you fix
ports for 10.0 as Why was 9.0 dropped out of CURRENT and 10.0
introduced before 9.0 went STABLE?
FreeBSD releases are from CVS/SVN branches, rather than the main
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 16:12:40 -0700
Stanislav Sedov s...@freebsd.org wrote:
So now tell me how
.if ${OSVERION} SOMETHING
do something
.endif
in bsd.port.mk
is more risky then that particular commit which can potentially break
devel/ for all OSVERSIONs.
+1.
I can't understand
On 30 Sep 2011 00:14, Stanislav Sedov s...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 17:40:36 -0400
Eitan Adler li...@eitanadler.com mentioned:
The ports tree can be very fickle and touching a large class of ports
requires multiple exp-runs. Attempting these types of changes
just prior to
Hi,
* Stanislav Sedov s...@freebsd.org, 20110929 22:43:
I think this is a good idea.
I recommend sending this to re@ and/or core@ for consideration.
Personally, I'd love to see this committed ASAP, as I'm unable
to do any ports work right now.
I've poked portmgr@. :-)
--
Ed Schouten
On 30 Sep 2011 09:41, Ed Schouten e...@80386.nl wrote:
Hi,
* Stanislav Sedov s...@freebsd.org, 20110929 22:43:
I think this is a good idea.
I recommend sending this to re@ and/or core@ for consideration.
Personally, I'd love to see this committed ASAP, as I'm unable
to do any ports
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 09:57:14AM +0100, Chris Rees wrote:
On 30 Sep 2011 09:41, Ed Schouten e...@80386.nl wrote:
Hi,
* Stanislav Sedov s...@freebsd.org, 20110929 22:43:
I think this is a good idea.
I recommend sending this to re@ and/or core@ for consideration.
Personally, I'd
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 5:10 AM, Erwin Lansing er...@freebsd.org wrote:
That said, this patch is the wrong place to fix a problem to autotools.
It needs to be fixed in autotools, not bsd.port.mk. No matter if it's
bsd.ports.mk or autotools, such a fix needs proper testing, for which
we do not
On Friday 30 September 2011 13:10:20 Jim Trigg wrote:
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 5:10 AM, Erwin Lansing er...@freebsd.org wrote:
That said, this patch is the wrong place to fix a problem to autotools.
It needs to be fixed in autotools, not bsd.port.mk. No matter if it's
bsd.ports.mk or
Hi folks,
Why can't we simply fix the entire ports tree at once by doing something
like this?
find ${WRKSRC} -type f \( -name config.libpath -o \
-name config.rpath -o -name configure -o -name libtool.m4 \) \
-exec sed -i 's/freebsd1\*)/SHOULDNOTMATCHANYTHING)/' {} +
Just to be
* Ed Schouten e...@80386.nl, 20110929 10:47:
-exec sed -i 's/freebsd1\*)/SHOULDNOTMATCHANYTHING)/' {} +
Whoops. Don't forget to add '' after the -i.
--
Ed Schouten e...@80386.nl
WWW: http://80386.nl/
pgpeXx31sf2gD.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On 29/09/2011 09:47, Ed Schouten wrote:
Hi folks,
Why can't we simply fix the entire ports tree at once by doing something
like this?
find ${WRKSRC} -type f \( -name config.libpath -o \
-name config.rpath -o -name configure -o -name libtool.m4 \) \
-exec sed -i
* Matthew Seaman m.sea...@infracaninophile.co.uk, 20110929 11:01:
Because that's a change to the upstream distfiles downloaded from the
net. So this change would have to be implemented by adding patch files
to every port that needed it, or by adding a new make target in the
various Makefiles.
* Ed Schouten e...@80386.nl, 20110929 11:07:
I meant simply adding this line to bsd.port.mk, to be executed after
pre-configure and before configure.
More specifically, see the attached patch.
--
Ed Schouten e...@80386.nl
WWW: http://80386.nl/
--- Mk/bsd.port.mk
+++ Mk/bsd.port.mk
@@
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 10:47:25AM +0200, Ed Schouten wrote:
Hi folks,
Why can't we simply fix the entire ports tree at once by doing something
like this?
If we're not going to fiddle with auto* so close to a release date, we
certainly are not going to fiddle with the whole ports
* Xin LI delp...@gmail.com, 20110929 12:08:
This is not sufficient since some places it's freebsd[123],
freebsd[[123]], etc...
Yes, but the patch I propose already fixes a large class of compilation
issues. It is by no means a silver bullet.
--
Ed Schouten e...@80386.nl
WWW:
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 1:47 AM, Ed Schouten e...@80386.nl wrote:
Hi folks,
Why can't we simply fix the entire ports tree at once by doing something
like this?
find ${WRKSRC} -type f \( -name config.libpath -o \
-name config.rpath -o -name configure -o -name libtool.m4 \) \
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 11:18:59 +0200
Ed Schouten e...@80386.nl mentioned:
* Ed Schouten e...@80386.nl, 20110929 11:07:
I meant simply adding this line to bsd.port.mk, to be executed after
pre-configure and before configure.
More specifically, see the attached patch.
I think this is a
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 11:47:33 +0200
Erwin Lansing er...@freebsd.org mentioned:
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 10:47:25AM +0200, Ed Schouten wrote:
Hi folks,
Why can't we simply fix the entire ports tree at once by doing something
like this?
If we're not going to fiddle with auto* so close
The ports tree can be very fickle and touching a large class of ports
requires multiple exp-runs. Attempting these types of changes
just prior to release adds a degree of risk which no one wants to accept.
The question is why we're not going to fiddle with auto* given other
stuff which is being
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 17:40:36 -0400
Eitan Adler li...@eitanadler.com mentioned:
The ports tree can be very fickle and touching a large class of ports
requires multiple exp-runs. Attempting these types of changes
just prior to release adds a degree of risk which no one wants to accept.
Who
22 matches
Mail list logo
