Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 09:29:03 +0000 From: Chris Whitehouse <cwhiteh@onetel.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Can't install WindowMaker Message-ID: <4F684DDF.3080506@onetel.com> In-Reply-To: <CAHHBGkrsVUENk62cw0pSsynMUZOCgVpoQrYyPa8=Cj_fRL_69w@mail.gmail.com> References: <20120311081750.GR9223@amd.catfish.ddns.org> <CAHHBGkrsVUENk62cw0pSsynMUZOCgVpoQrYyPa8=Cj_fRL_69w@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 20/03/2012 04:58, illoai@gmail.com wrote: > On 11 March 2012 04:17, Sabine Baer<baerks@t-online.de> wrote: >> Sorry if I'm totally wrong here but I don't know where to ask. >> >> I'm using WindowMaker as my window manager for some years. I do not >> remember why, but some days ago, I deinstalled ist. Now, I can't >> install it. >> >> $uname -rp >> |7.4-STABLE amd64 >> >> #portmaster -aD >> |all up to date (had a long run of updating gcc46 and others this >> |morning) >> >> #portmaster /x11-wm/windomaker >> |[...] >> |handlers.c:542: warning: implicit declaration of function 'FD_ISSET' >> |*** Error code 1 > > I know I'm going back a ways here but: > > Unless you have WERROR set, I don't think that warning is > the thing giving you "*** Error code 1". Look up a bit (or a > lot) higher. > Hi, There is a thread on the ports mailing list which may be relevant. Subject "[PATCH] proposal for x11-wm/windowmaker". See below for a bit of it. On 3/19/2012 4:54 PM, Ade Lovett wrote: > > On 3/19/2012 16:15, Doug Barton wrote: >> >> On 3/19/2012 12:59 AM, Arrigo Marchiori wrote: >>> >>> Hello, >>> >>> >>> >>> I am attaching a "quick-and-dirty" patch that should reallow >>> >>> compilation of x11-wm/windowmaker under 7-STABLE. >>> >>> >>> >>> The problem seems to be the missing macro HAVE_SYS_SELECT_H; the patch >>> >>> just forces it in the configure script if a FreeBSD system is >>> >>> detected. >> >> >> >> I'm not opposed to adding that if someone can confirm that it allows >> >> WindowMaker to compile on 7-stable. > > > > Since it's for 7-stable only (apparently), it would be better off > > wrapped in an OSVERSION check to make things abundantly clear as to why > > it's being done. Yes, I was planning to do that, but thanks for the suggestion in any case.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4F684DDF.3080506>