Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 21:39:34 +0200 (EET) From: "Kari E. Hurtta" <Kari.Hurtta@ozone.FMI.FI> To: Keith Ward <kward@panther.net> Cc: ache@FreeBSD.org, ports@FreeBSD.org, hurtta+elm@ozone.FMI.FI Subject: Re: FreeBSD Port: elm-2.4ME+61 Message-ID: <200001231939.e0NJdYW48520@ozone.fmi.fi> In-Reply-To: <388B2292.87C6E82A@panther.net> from Keith Ward at "Jan 23, 2000 09:47:30 am"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Keith Ward: > > [Actually Re: elm-2.4ME+68] Yes. elm-2.4ME+68 is lastest. > After cvsupping to current branch on ports yesterday, I ran into errors > on the > pl68 port of elm. > > Earlier (ME+61) ports did not have 'dotlock' included in the > pre-configure script > and this appears to break the current version since /var/mail is (by > default) set > to mode 775 root.mail. In order for the current port to work, it would > have to > be installed setgid(mail), which it isn't. > > Further testing also reveals that excluding (changing to 'undef') > dotlock in the > pre-configure script breaks the build: > > ... > cc -I../hdrs -c len_next.c > cc -I../hdrs -c mail_gets.c > cc -I../hdrs -c mbox.c > mbox.c: In function `mbx_free_spool': > mbox.c:972: structure has no member named `lockfile' > mbox.c:973: structure has no member named `lockfile' > mbox.c:974: structure has no member named `lockfile' > *** Error code 1 Thank you for notifying. I didn't tested that without dotlock to be defined. / Kari Hurtta To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200001231939.e0NJdYW48520>