Re: [153697] trunk/dports/sysutils/bacula

2016-10-08 Thread Aljaž Srebrnič
> On 08 ott 2016, at 15:46, Ryan Schmidt wrote: > > I suppose it's possible someone managed to install it in a secondary > non-standard prefix, if they also had the dependencies installed in the > standard prefix. Yeah, that is indeed possible. I commited r153706 with

Re: [153697] trunk/dports/sysutils/bacula

2016-10-08 Thread Ryan Schmidt
> On Oct 8, 2016, at 8:43 AM, Aljaž Srebrnič wrote: > >> On 08 ott 2016, at 11:40, Ryan Schmidt wrote: >> >> /opt/local should not be hardcoded. > > Of course. Should I revbump it just to be sure? It wouldn’t build in a > non-standard prefix

Re: [153697] trunk/dports/sysutils/bacula

2016-10-08 Thread Aljaž Srebrnič
> On 08 ott 2016, at 11:40, Ryan Schmidt wrote: > > /opt/local should not be hardcoded. Of course. Should I revbump it just to be sure? It wouldn’t build in a non-standard prefix anyway. -- Aljaž Srebrnič a.k.a g5pw My public key: https://g5pw.me/key Key fingerprint

Re: [153697] trunk/dports/sysutils/bacula

2016-10-08 Thread Ryan Schmidt
setting the > patchfiles again would clobber the first patch > Closes #49203 > Added: trunk/dports/sysutils/bacula/files/patch-configure-qt4.diff (0 => > 153697) > --- trunk/dports/sysutils/bacula/files/patch-configure-qt4.diff > (rev 0) > +++ trun