From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Mar 20 18:57:08 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4CB441D7 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2014 18:57:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp-auth.serv.Uni-Osnabrueck.DE (vm135.rz.uni-osnabrueck.de [131.173.16.10]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E9120FCA for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2014 18:57:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from hal9000.drpetervoigt.private (p5DC4C637.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [93.196.198.55]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp-auth.serv.Uni-Osnabrueck.DE (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s2KIuvpe032592 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 20 Mar 2014 19:56:57 +0100 Received: from tiger2008.drpetervoigt.private (tiger2008.drpetervoigt.private [192.168.1.96]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: pvoigt) by hal9000.drpetervoigt.private (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2DF631E0042; Thu, 20 Mar 2014 19:54:57 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 19:54:56 +0100 From: "Dr. Peter Voigt" To: Robert Huff Subject: Re: Libiconv confusion on 10.0-RELEASE Message-ID: <20140320195456.6141bcaf@tiger2008.drpetervoigt.private> In-Reply-To: <532B155B.4000108@rcn.com> References: <532B155B.4000108@rcn.com> Organization: =?UTF-8?B?VW5pdmVyc2l0w6R0IE9zbmFicsO8Y2s=?= X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.9.3 (GTK+ 2.22.1; x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-PMX-Version: 6.0.0.2142326, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.2107409, Antispam-Data: 2014.3.20.184815 (Univ. Osnabrueck) X-PMX-Spam: Gauge=IIIIIIII, Probability=8%, Report= HTML_00_01 0.05, HTML_00_10 0.05, BODYTEXTP_SIZE_3000_LESS 0, BODY_SIZE_1500_1599 0, BODY_SIZE_2000_LESS 0, BODY_SIZE_5000_LESS 0, BODY_SIZE_7000_LESS 0, FROM_NAME_PHRASE 0, RDNS_POOLED 0, RDNS_SUSP 0, RDNS_SUSP_SPECIFIC 0, __ANY_URI 0, __BOUNCE_CHALLENGE_SUBJ 0, __BOUNCE_NDR_SUBJ_EXEMPT 0, __CANPHARM_UNSUB_LINK 0, __CP_URI_IN_BODY 0, __CT 0, __CTE 0, __CT_TEXT_PLAIN 0, __FORWARDED_MSG 0, __FRAUD_BODY_WEBMAIL 0, __FRAUD_WEBMAIL 0, __HAS_FROM 0, __HAS_MSGID 0, __HAS_REPLYTO 0, __HAS_X_MAILER 0, __IN_REP_TO 0, __MIME_TEXT_ONLY 0, __MIME_VERSION 0, __RDNS_POOLED_10 0, __REPLYTO_SAMEAS_FROM 0, __REPLYTO_SAMEAS_FROM_ACC 0, __REPLYTO_SAMEAS_FROM_ADDY 0, __REPLYTO_SAMEAS_FROM_DOMAIN 0, __SANE_MSGID 0, __SUBJ_ALPHA_END 0, __SUBJ_ALPHA_NEGATE 0, __TO_MALFORMED_2 0, __URI_NO_WWW 0 X-PMX-Spam-Level: IIIIIIII Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list Reply-To: "Dr. Peter Voigt" List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 18:57:08 -0000 Am Thu, 20 Mar 2014 12:20:43 -0400 schrieb Robert Huff : > Johan Hendriks writes: > > > As far as I know, there is some libiconv functionality missing in > > the base libiconv implementation. That is the reason some ports > > installed converters/libiconv from ports. > > From reading the mailing lists and skimming the PRs, it > appears subversion may be such a port. Is there a current list of > ports know to need the ports version of iconv? > > Respectfully, > > > Robert Huff > > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports > To unsubscribe, send any mail to > "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" Thanks on feedback to all. Meanwhile I've read a lot about iconv and to be honest, things are becoming even less clear. I am having not enough experience with FreeBSD to completely judge the situation. But obviously replacement of the ports version of iconv is still an ongoing process somehow related to 10.0-RELEASE. Besides the full list of affected ports I would like to know, if the 11 ports on my 10.0-RELEASE system currently depending on converters/libiconv all really have to. Or could they be built against the base iconv? My attempts so far to rebuild them with the /usr/ports/UPDATING advice was not successful. My feeling says that information about iconv in /usr/ports/UPDATING is not complete. Regards, Peter