On 2015-06-16 17:06, Julian H. Stacey wrote:
> bsd.port.mk test below is too agressive, let's have it just Warn, not Fail.
> Also prefix text "Error: " or "Warning: " make it obvious which is happening.
>
> It seems likely people may have different opinions if it should
> just Warn or Error, so kets add an environent switch to stear that decision.
> Which way the default setting of switch should be, I won't suggest
> (in hope of enhancing chance of agreement to add the switch :-)
> Whoever adds the switch could decide ?
>
> Background:
> current fails to make my /usr/ports/graphics/libspiro
> I contacted cc'd MAINTAINER= who wrote me
> "my poudriere is running on 10"
> I dont run poudriere, but have a native 10 partition
> so simply did a chroot ...
> I ran:
> cd /s2; head -1 /etc/motd
> # FreeBSD 10.1-RELEASE (LAPR.small) #0: Sat Feb 28 16:29:20 CET 2015
> cd /usr/ports/graphics/libspiro
> make clean
> make: "/usr/ports/Mk/bsd.port.mk" line 1214: UNAME_r (11.0-CURRENT) and
> OSVERSION (1001000) do not agree on major version number.
> make
> make: "/usr/ports/Mk/bsd.port.mk" line 1214: UNAME_r (11.0-CURRENT) and
> OSVERSION (1001000) do not agree on major version number.
>
> Same forced error can be seen on current lines 1197 & 1199.
>
> After I patched out the failing bsd.port.mk error I could continue my test
> of the port & see the port build with 10 src & ports on an 11 kernel.
>
Patching bsd.port.mk is not the way to go, set the following environment vars
before starting a build inside the jail
- UNAME_r=10.1-RELEASE-p10
- UNAME_v=FreeBSD 10.1-RELEASE-p10
- OSVERSION=1001000
For example in the login.conf of the jail
default:\
:setenv=UNAME_r=10.1-RELEASE-p10,UNAME_v=FreeBSD
10.1-RELEASE-p10,OSVERSION=1001000:\
...
--
olli
_______________________________________________
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
