On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 11:44:42AM +0200, Stefan Sperling wrote: > On Thu, Sep 05, 2013 at 12:32:45PM -0400, Brad Smith wrote: > > On 05/09/13 9:57 AM, Stefan Sperling wrote: > > >On Thu, Sep 05, 2013 at 02:24:03PM +0100, Stuart Henderson wrote: > > >>On 2013/09/05 14:43, Stefan Sperling wrote: > > >>>On Wed, Sep 04, 2013 at 02:50:44PM -0400, Brad Smith wrote: > > >>>>The soname command line parameter should just be removed on the line > > >>>>below what is being modified. > > >>> > > >>>That would likely make it work. But I don't think we could push > > >>>such a patch upstream. > > >> > > >>Hmm, why not? Obviously it would need to be conditional on OS > > > > > >I couldn't tell from Brad's comment whether he meant it to be > > >OS-dependent or just the simple one-line removal hack. > > > > > >I'm working with the upstream devs now. > > > > Well what goes into the ports tree and how the issue is ultimately > > fixed upstream doesn't have to be the same but the goal is to > > eventually have it fixed properly upstream. The upstream fix would > > be OS dependent. > > Here's a new diff that was discussed with upstream. They haven't > committed it yet but they didn't raise concerns about this. > > Is this fine?
That looks saner, and it's nice that upstream is willing to cooperate :) I suppose that will allow us to remove some patches in consumer ports ? Landry
