From owner-freebsd-gnome@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Dec 30 08:10:01 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: gnome@smarthost.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E674AA10 for ; Sun, 30 Dec 2012 08:10:01 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206c::16:87]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB8848FC0C for ; Sun, 30 Dec 2012 08:10:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id qBU8A1Ko079879 for ; Sun, 30 Dec 2012 08:10:01 GMT (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.5/8.14.5/Submit) id qBU8A1e7079878; Sun, 30 Dec 2012 08:10:01 GMT (envelope-from gnats) Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2012 08:10:01 GMT Message-Id: <201212300810.qBU8A1e7079878@freefall.freebsd.org> To: gnome@FreeBSD.org From: Jan Beich Subject: Re: ports/169650: [patch] graphics/gimp-app: do not depend on -lexecinfo, it's unused X-BeenThere: freebsd-gnome@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list Reply-To: Jan Beich List-Id: GNOME for FreeBSD -- porting and maintaining List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2012 08:10:02 -0000 The following reply was made to PR ports/169650; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Jan Beich To: mezz@FreeBSD.org Cc: bug-followup@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ports/169650: [patch] graphics/gimp-app: do not depend on -lexecinfo, it's unused Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2012 06:04:13 -0200 mezz@FreeBSD.org writes: > Synopsis: [patch] graphics/gimp-app: do not depend on -lexecinfo, it's unused > > State-Changed-From-To: open->closed > State-Changed-By: mezz > State-Changed-When: Sun Dec 30 06:18:47 UTC 2012 > State-Changed-Why: > It looks like the current gimp-app in ports tree no longer has get_backtrace() > in the app/base/base-utils.c. > My patch is against gimp-2.8 in marcuscom repo. Speaking of which, why ports/163519 wasn't applied there?