Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2016 12:58:48 +0100 From: Mathieu Arnold <mat@FreeBSD.org> To: Raphael Kubo da Costa <rakuco@FreeBSD.org> Cc: ports-committers@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r426759 - in head/databases/xapian-core: . files Message-ID: <683d02ff-4117-508f-8a66-3f1712043009@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <86oa17lt6j.fsf@FreeBSD.org> References: <201611212126.uALLQxT0063108@repo.freebsd.org> <b951b86f-d619-3d85-fbbf-e2dfeba2e22e@FreeBSD.org> <86oa17lt6j.fsf@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --i2nONGUpsM4Rp4ef8PsBnQnuLOitVSAFg Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="ktXVOo4LUsbCwBkAI9IPlhh5iLgCJTaPb"; protected-headers="v1" From: Mathieu Arnold <mat@FreeBSD.org> To: Raphael Kubo da Costa <rakuco@FreeBSD.org> Cc: ports-committers@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Message-ID: <683d02ff-4117-508f-8a66-3f1712043009@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r426759 - in head/databases/xapian-core: . files References: <201611212126.uALLQxT0063108@repo.freebsd.org> <b951b86f-d619-3d85-fbbf-e2dfeba2e22e@FreeBSD.org> <86oa17lt6j.fsf@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <86oa17lt6j.fsf@FreeBSD.org> --ktXVOo4LUsbCwBkAI9IPlhh5iLgCJTaPb Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Le 22/11/2016 =C3=A0 11:12, Raphael Kubo da Costa a =C3=A9crit : > Mathieu Arnold <mat@FreeBSD.org> writes: > >> Le 21/11/2016 =C3=A0 22:26, Raphael Kubo da Costa a =C3=A9crit : >> >>> SOCK_CLOEXEC was introduced in FreeBSD 10, so define it to 0 on Fre= eBSD 9 (the >>> code already handles this case). Xapian 1.4 has a safesyssocket.h t= hat does the >>> same thing. >> But FreeBSD 10 is not 1000000. In that case, according to >> sys/sys/socket.h's log, it was added in r248534, the closest version i= s >> 1000031. > I tried looking for a specific entry mentioning SOCK_CLOEXEC in the > porter's handbook and decided to go with 1000000 after not finding > anything. > > I'm fine with adjusting the check, but given 1000031 predates even the > branching of FreeBSD 10 and the minimum 10.x version we currently > support is 10.1, does it make sense to do that? 1000000 is wrong because SOCK_CLOEXEC was added between 1000030 and 1000031. So the right OSVERSION to use is 1000031. --=20 Mathieu Arnold --ktXVOo4LUsbCwBkAI9IPlhh5iLgCJTaPb-- --i2nONGUpsM4Rp4ef8PsBnQnuLOitVSAFg Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQJ8BAEBCgBmBQJYNDL6XxSAAAAAAC4AKGlzc3Vlci1mcHJAbm90YXRpb25zLm9w ZW5wZ3AuZmlmdGhob3JzZW1hbi5uZXQzQUI2OTc4OUQyRUQxMjEwNjQ0MEJBNUIz QTQ1MTZGMzUxODNDRTQ4AAoJEDpFFvNRg85IjU4P/jAfHaM8kFKKhNpODUX9JsYN fPb0hqDoNGSKTrwqFs1uE2gYmV1uiCjniVBIT3AOdpTllU1PFgtnF32uEec8rmib Z+jq18p2QAZS6TF+3zItLEkoCb7IdpscxHSbkMFpqTjxd065rIPweGwratzCyxvW XuXqQdRjKkr/ExdlGCogu8cmO1tlwyRjt0J9tS6z+vQfIB1JXlnh/428SR6KbSdV ZT15+/a1boxKsq4VZ6w3hT1qh3ya10d+DcXnPXW24OIi3l3cV3cjm9L10wd1rxZs mh+sf/aZdyoVv/zvqya9nTqdzS9G/1c/Srlx5+OGX+kVXdHpc4A6o1G6Xv+wMnSU PnMv1FSAcNj2dhz46UjRSXAZ2PVxB6w1gYHag69KmC4KarxDiMMB4CPH03xk1g3a 0Iq+yHOkj8snRmFlEgPHzM2C+mYuQPzqZHPAMAVW5CD2wNOtDg3RJijyvBoB6k0A 7qmE596RczYYjK6eBLYGxaqtJBvzfq9Kcu3IJaSmVXTO2oZtvkcney/JOHx9kYg1 cBhxpNl+MhmagHFSs9lgTFXpBYkHTbohObbBQI01arx6REhC/YPsZRWUfspG/UnE 51sM6fgKTRQ0Z/8S/6w1BZdqWYlkp4SA/8Vb1V1l56c0riO4TxD2EO3bTjrAduhT C3a7fwcDEkkLokfWVcL1 =we41 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --i2nONGUpsM4Rp4ef8PsBnQnuLOitVSAFg--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?683d02ff-4117-508f-8a66-3f1712043009>