From owner-freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Sep 10 16:50:07 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports-bugs@hub.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAD751065673 for ; Sat, 10 Sep 2011 16:50:07 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::28]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB8F48FC0A for ; Sat, 10 Sep 2011 16:50:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p8AGo7xT088517 for ; Sat, 10 Sep 2011 16:50:07 GMT (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id p8AGo7ih088514; Sat, 10 Sep 2011 16:50:07 GMT (envelope-from gnats) Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2011 16:50:07 GMT Message-Id: <201109101650.p8AGo7ih088514@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org From: Kevin Oberman Cc: Subject: Re: ports/160608: sysutils/fusefs-kmod fails to build on amd64 X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Kevin Oberman List-Id: Ports bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2011 16:50:07 -0000 The following reply was made to PR ports/160608; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Kevin Oberman To: Ivan Klymenko Cc: bug-followup@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ports/160608: sysutils/fusefs-kmod fails to build on amd64 Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2011 09:21:51 -0700 On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 11:34 PM, Ivan Klymenko wrote: > This problem report is a duplicate > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=159361&cat= PR ports/159361 is a bit of a mess as it conflates two PRa related to the fusefs-kmod port. The long patch in the PR is mostly changes that are already committed to the port. Only a single change, from 'int' to 'uint64_t' in the third hunk is required, as far as I can tell. It changes three variables from 'int' to 'uint64_t', where mine only changed the first two, but I can't say which is more correct and it may make no difference. Please don't assume that the committed patch is the complete fix. -- R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer - Retired E-mail: kob6558@gmail.com