rebuilding wine without any make.conf changed nothing
OK - I managed to build wine after a recent ports update. The only
difference I could see is that I used to use su to get root. I now
use su - to get root.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing
On Mon, 8 Mar 2010, Eitan Adler wrote:
Interesting - I just used whatever flex was in my path. Is wine making
the same mistake?
% /usr/local/bin/flex --version
flex 2.5.35
The following in wine/Makefile
CONFIGURE_ENV= ... FLEX=${LOCALBASE}/bin/flex
takes care of using the ports version
On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 11:41 AM, Gerald Pfeifer ger...@pfeifer.com wrote:
On Mon, 8 Mar 2010, Eitan Adler wrote:
Interesting - I just used whatever flex was in my path. Is wine making
the same mistake?
% /usr/local/bin/flex --version
flex 2.5.35
The following in wine/Makefile
Hi Eitan,
On Mon, 1 Mar 2010, Eitan Adler wrote:
Which version of flex are you using (you can find out running
/usr/local/bin/flex --version)?
%flex --version
flex version 2.5.4
that is the system version of flex; I was specifically asking for
the one in /usr/local/bin/flex which is used by
On Mon, 1 Mar 2010, Eitan Adler wrote:
Which version of flex are you using (you can find out running
/usr/local/bin/flex --version)?
%flex --version
flex version 2.5.4
that is the system version of flex; I was specifically asking for
the one in /usr/local/bin/flex which is used by the wine
I am not seeing this in any of my tests, nor is the FreeBSD ports
cluster, nor have I seen any other report related to this. This
means something must be different/special with your system.
Is your ports collection up-to-date? (Running 'portupgrade -a'
may be an option, then.)
My ports
