Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 03 Nov 2011 22:25:06 +0100
From:      "O. Hartmann" <ohartman@zedat.fu-berlin.de>
To:        bf1783@gmail.com
Cc:        Matthias Apitz <guru@unixarea.de>, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org, "b. f." <bf1783@googlemail.com>, freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org
Subject:   Re: 10.0-CUR r226986 && ports (general)
Message-ID:  <4EB306B2.30602@zedat.fu-berlin.de>
In-Reply-To: <CAGFTUwN82LOFk_NW-E-%2BMuwL9ApsyAb_9y8KtDmhvaOZ6mbhKA@mail.gmail.com>
References:  <CAGFTUwN82LOFk_NW-E-%2BMuwL9ApsyAb_9y8KtDmhvaOZ6mbhKA@mail.gmail.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
--------------enig92391ED3A6F5D5D019BB462F
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Am 11/03/11 18:42, schrieb b. f.:
>>>> It turns out that the problem is more general! A lot of ./configure
>>>> scripts are detecting in 10-CUR that they can't or should not build
>>>> shared libs; the problem is that the OS is detected now as
>>>
>>> As a temporary workaround, add "WITH_FBSD10_FIX=3D1" to /etc/make.con=
f.
>>
>> ports/UPDATING and some of the mails in the archive of -current
>> recommend setting UNAME_r=3D9.0-CURRENT; is this the same or which met=
hod
>> is prefered?
>=20
> No, it is not the same.  You can either masquerade, by setting UNAME_r
> and OSVERSION, or by editing the headers and scripts that define them;
> or you can use WITH_FBSD10_FIX for ports that define HAS_CONFIGURE
> (which is implied by USE_AUTOTOOLS and GNU_CONFIGURE).  Right now the
> masquerading is probably safer, because there are some problems with
> the fix that are still being resolved -- and a few ports that may fail
> despite the fix.  But of course if you help to test without
> masquerading, these problems will be resolved sooner.
>=20
> b.

So I presume the WITH_FBSD10_FIX flag is set in /etc/make.conf, right?
Setting this and try building ports without the masquerading will help
those people involved in fixing more than the masquerading solution? If
so, I would like to do so. I compile/update quite often ports, simply to
keep my system fresh and for some testing purposes. At the moment I
switch very often between CLANG and the legacy gcc 4.2.2 of FBSD 10, so
it would not bother me much more as the inherited bothering due to the
problems discussed if I have to switch one time more or prepare a PR for
the problem.

On the other hand, as far as I know, there was only suggested using
UNAME_r. When do I have to use the OSVERSION?


Regards
Oliver


--------------enig92391ED3A6F5D5D019BB462F
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (FreeBSD)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJOswa2AAoJEOgBcD7A/5N86UsH/1n3ND7VbDotep7wvTQfl/FH
G+ZmRil17h0qiHQXx7pB/XL/xP2LHRA2nQGkE9a+wnlnUBBglt12pWTyZDV7LYtN
pP98g4ticpvxFJXCJ0VlHgSTPveB20UhF4O1wEFjkBB2oi19OQwA9+LPPfRSZhsu
ZHxo+nKQSAmDSTdzCse5qDR/Nveu8UGLl1iSVY8liDqXxnmxgv9RTmM50jVYLh8j
OwUU6SuDsOWE0Bb2ePToBe8uoIlSnq8btrfCmHqyfE53k/xD7zEEDcP7AheEX5Ds
ffzUw0EMLH5B4SE3bRjCdy6ObaUZaMf6LIR9NKLm5G9SWWCE9H3xg+ViON+p0cg=
=+8E6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--------------enig92391ED3A6F5D5D019BB462F--



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4EB306B2.30602>