I'm afraid I'm really in a position to look at this closely now, but I
think that the latest version (attached) might resolve some of the above
problems.
Kind regards,
Christopher Key
Index: Mk/bsd.port.mk
===
RCS f
On 22/07/2010 11:11, Alex Dupre wrote:
Christopher Key ha scritto:
At present, the interaction between portconf and port options is
somewhat confusing.
It's not completely clear to me if you are referring to my portconf
port. If so, the interaction is really simple: portco
et both WITH_XXX and WITHOUT_XXX then the option would be off (and only
WITHOUT_XXX would be defined after bsd.port.option.mk) because
WITHOUT_XXX takes priority.
Feedback would be very much appreciated.
Kind regards,
Christopher Key
Index: Mk/bsd.port.mk
=
On 21/07/2010 21:34, Philip M. Gollucci wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 07/21/10 20:30, Christopher Key wrote:
On 19/07/2010 21:05, Anonymous wrote:
Christopher Key writes:
A crude survey shows several ports with this problem, listed below.
...
If you can
On 19/07/2010 21:05, Anonymous wrote:
Christopher Key writes:
A crude survey shows several ports with this problem, listed below.
...
If you can suggest which is the
preferred solution, I'll put together a patch.
I don't know what workaround is preferred but I'd sug
Scott Sanbeg wrote:
> The patch could possibly solve my challenge, but if it works then why do I
> get this?
>
> r...@anchorage:/usr/ports/lang/perl5.12# patch < my.patch
> Hmm... Looks like a unified diff to me...
> The text leading up to this was:
> --
> |--- files/patch-
cj...@cam.ac.uk wrote:
> Someone who understands the perl threading internals needs to figure
> this out.
>
>
Simple solution, there was a missing -lpthread, patch available from:
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/148648
For some reason, linking binaries without -lpthread succe
gards,
Christopher Key
Index: ports/Mk/bsd.port.mk
===
RCS file: /home/ncvs/ports/Mk/bsd.port.mk,v
retrieving revision 1.642
diff -u -r1.642 bsd.port.mk
--- ports/Mk/bsd.port.mk4 Jun 2010 08:09:17 - 1.642
+++ por
> On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 1:07 PM, Christopher Key <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>> wrote:
> >/ patch uname to return the appropriate answer
/>
> I do not think you will need this since answers returned by uname(1)
> can be customized easily,
is [1]
Is this something that should be fixed? Do either of the above
solutions make sense? It certainly seems desirable to be able to cross
compile ports like this, both for testing and for producing packages.
Kind regards,
Christopher Key
[1]
--- devel/qt4-corelib/Makefile 2010-03-25 14:
10 matches
Mail list logo
