Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 19:11:27 -0500 From: Diane Bruce <db@db.net> To: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Cc: Diane Bruce <db@db.net>, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Just a note about include files in ports Message-ID: <20051203001127.GA3532@night.dbn> In-Reply-To: <20051129204003.GA56311@xor.obsecurity.org> References: <20051129192509.GA54936@night.dbn> <20051129204003.GA56311@xor.obsecurity.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 03:40:03PM -0500, Kris Kennaway wrote: > On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 02:25:09PM -0500, Diane Bruce wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Be careful with includes in a port build. I have caught two ports using ... > > can break or at least compile incorrectly if the port include files change > > between releases. If you are lucky, it will fail. > > Parts of KDE and GNOME do this :-( It's one of the main reasons that I don't think it should be a big problem with the average port, provided the upgraded port is compiled with the old port still installed. A port picking up an obsolete include file which is missing a new structure, will break the compile thus showing the problem. I was just surprised to see two ports with the problem fairly close together in time. I'd suggest folks at the very least test that their spanking brand new port upgrade with the old include files from the last port still in place. It is also easy to spot wrong order of -I as it compiles. Seeing as Pav and others have refuted the KDE and GNOME include theory, I guess it is not a huge problem after all, since no one else has commented. ;-) -- - db@db.net http://www.db.net/~db
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20051203001127.GA3532>