On 10/31/12 10:39, Pietro Cerutti wrote: <snip> >> patch < tk85.diff > Hmm... Looks like a unified diff to me... > The text leading up to this was: > -------------------------- > |--- Makefile.orig 2012-10-26 19:47:37.000000000 -0500 > |+++ Makefile 2012-10-29 20:16:13.000000000 -0500 > -------------------------- > Patching file Makefile using Plan A... > Reversed (or previously applied) patch detected! Assume -R? [y] n > Apply anyway? [n] y > Hunk #1 failed at 1. > Hunk #2 failed at 7. > Hunk #3 failed at 40. > Hunk #4 failed at 58. > Hunk #5 failed at 420. > 5 out of 5 hunks failed--saving rejects to Makefile.rej > done >
New diff[0], undoing some of the earlier changes even though portlint complains: portlint ~/port-maintenance/tk85/ WARN: Makefile: unless this is a master port, COMMENT has to be set by "=", not by "?=". WARN: Makefile: "LIB_DEPENDS" has to appear earlier. WARN: Makefile: no port directory /usr/ports/lang/tcl${SHORT_TK_VER}-thread found, even though it is listed in LIB_DEPENDS. WARN: Makefile: LIB_DEPENDS don't specify the ABI version number .2 in Xft.2 unless it is really necessary. 0 fatal errors and 4 warnings found. [0]: http://pastebin.com/apf1Y9H0 -- Yours in Christ, Joseph A Nagy Jr "Whoever loves instruction loves knowledge, But he who hates correction is stupid." -- Proverbs 12:1 Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want. Original content CopyFree (F) under the OWL http://owl.apotheon.org
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature