Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 15:58:54 -0800 From: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@xcllnt.net> To: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Cc: x11@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [ports-ia64@pointyhat.freebsd.org: xorg-fonts-type1-6.7.0 failed on ia64 6] Message-ID: <20041123235854.GA19517@ns1.xcllnt.net> In-Reply-To: <20041123233407.GA73561@xor.obsecurity.org> References: <20041123221629.GE56261@xor.obsecurity.org> <20041123231936.GA18847@ns1.xcllnt.net> <20041123233407.GA73561@xor.obsecurity.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Nov 23, 2004 at 03:34:07PM -0800, Kris Kennaway wrote: > > > > I built xorg just yesterday on my -current ia64. No problems. > > Can you check if the port was built on pluto1 or pluto2? > > xorg-clients was built on pluto2. Ok, thanks. > > pluto1 runs 5.3-stable, whereas pluto2 runs 6-current. I think > > a 6-current chroot on a 5.3-stable machine is not a good idea > > and a 5.3-stable chroot on a 6-current machine is questionable. > > Unless there are ia64-specific incompatibilities or bugs, going both > ways should be fine at the moment, and in particular it shouldn't > matter whether the package was compiled under a 6.x kernel or a 5.x > kernel as long as the userland is the same. There's nothing ia64 specific, but there are various generic changes that possibly affect ports. Enough to make me feel uncomfortable to mix and match and why I have one on -stable and the other on -current. > There's the usual instability on pluto* though, so perhaps the package > was affected by some form of data corruption during the build. Yes, possible. I'm building xorg on pluto2 as we speak. It's probably a fluke however... -- Marcel Moolenaar USPA: A-39004 marcel@xcllnt.net
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20041123235854.GA19517>