Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 10:30:46 -0300 From: Renato Botelho <garga@FreeBSD.org> To: Boris Samorodov <bsam@passap.ru>, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: libiconv problem on dansguardian-(devel) Message-ID: <525FE686.9050507@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <525FDFFE.8050508@passap.ru> References: <20131017131934.09d016cf4abfe5c6926e40d7@mimar.rs> <525FDA4B.4060509@passap.ru> <525FDE61.70109@FreeBSD.org> <525FDFFE.8050508@passap.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156)
--X76sNqMhtiAor3OnEQWWqPhO9iQcW3xKo
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On 17-10-2013 10:02, Boris Samorodov wrote:
> 17.10.2013 16:56, Renato Botelho =D0=BF=D0=B8=D1=88=D0=B5=D1=82:
>> On 17-10-2013 09:38, Boris Samorodov wrote:
>>> 17.10.2013 15:19, Marko Cupa=C4=87 =D0=BF=D0=B8=D1=88=D0=B5=D1=82:
>>>
>>>> I cannot compile either of the two with NTLM option enabled:
>>>> www/dansguardian
>>>> www/dansguardian-devel
>>>>
>>>> This is on 9.2-RELEASE i386.
>>>>
>>>> Both fail with the same error message:
>>>>
>>>> ---- error message ----
>>>> checking for NTLM support... yes
>>>> checking for iconv... no
>>>> no
>>>> checking for iconv in -liconv... no
>>>> no
>>>> checking for libiconv in -liconv... no
>>>> configure: error: no native or standard library iconv function found=
! (needed by NTLM plugin - try again with "--with-libiconv"?)
>>>> =3D=3D=3D> Script "configure" failed unexpectedly.
>>>> ---- error message ----
>>>>
>>>> Any idea how to fix this?
>>>
>>> I think that the right way is to include iconv to Uses unconditionall=
y
>>> (keeping in mind that --with-libiconv=3D${LOCALBASE} also was used
>>> unconditionally before switching to Uses/iconv.mk). The same for
>>> www/dansguardian-devel.
>>>
>>> The proposed patch attached.
>>
>> Thanks Boris, feel free to commit it please.
>=20
> Ok, I have a question though. Should a PORTREVISION be bumped?
> The package for 11-x and 10-x won't change, however for 9.x and 8.x
> would. I assume that to be on a safe side it's better to bump it.
> What do you think? Thanks!
I agree with bumping, sounds more safe.
--=20
Renato Botelho <garga @ FreeBSD.org>
<garga.bsd @ gmail.com>
GnuPG Key: http://www.FreeBSD.org/~garga/pubkey.asc
--X76sNqMhtiAor3OnEQWWqPhO9iQcW3xKo
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.15 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/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=LPN4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--X76sNqMhtiAor3OnEQWWqPhO9iQcW3xKo--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?525FE686.9050507>