From owner-freebsd-stable Wed Feb 14 19: 7:35 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from cantvc.canterbury.ac.nz (cantvc.canterbury.ac.nz [132.181.30.1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 019C937B401 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 19:07:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.it.canterbury.ac.nz by it.canterbury.ac.nz (PMDF V6.0-24 #45723) id <01K058GEHCG0AC6LA5@it.canterbury.ac.nz> for freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 16:07:24 +1300 (NEW ZEALAND DAYLIGHT TIME) Received: from student.canterbury.ac.nz (rbm49.tacacs.canterbury.ac.nz [172.31.164.87]) by it.canterbury.ac.nz (PMDF V6.0-24 #45723) with ESMTP id <01K058GD1OI2AB0G5O@it.canterbury.ac.nz> for freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 16:07:24 +1300 (NEW ZEALAND DAYLIGHT TIME) Received: (from rbm49@localhost) by student.canterbury.ac.nz (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f1F36Hb15594 for freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 16:06:17 +1300 (NZDT envelope-from rbm49) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 16:05:47 +1300 From: Richard B Mahoney Subject: Re: Ghostscript-6.50_2 under 4.0 Stable In-reply-to: <"from mikko"@dynas.se> To: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Reply-To: Richard B Mahoney Mail-followup-to: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Message-id: <20010215160546.H6617@student.canterbury.ac.nz> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 4.2-20010211-STABLE References: <20010215124000.G6617@student.canterbury.ac.nz> <200102150138.f1F1cXc45591@explorer.rsa.com> Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Mikko, On Wed, Feb 14, 2001 at 05:38:33PM -0800, Mikko Tyolajarvi wrote: > In local.freebsd.stable you write: > > >I have just updated my system from 4.0 to FreeBSD > >4.2-20010211-STABLE. I updated everything but SRC. I've just > >tried to compile `Ghostscript-6.50_2' without success. I was > >wondering if anyone would be able to spot what is wrong. > > >Here is the log file: > > [...] > > >===> Patching for ghostscript-6.50_2 > >===> Applying FreeBSD patches for ghostscript-6.50_2 > >Ignoring previously applied (or reversed) patch. > >1 out of 1 hunks ignored--saving rejects to src/contrib.mak.rej > >>> Patch patch-ab failed to apply cleanly. > > Odd. None of my machines (recently cvsupped) have a "patch-ab" for > ghostscript6. According to CVS it was removed four weeks ago (along > with patch-ad, I might add). > > $.02, > /Mikko Curious. I wonder if your Makefile is more recent than mine. Here are the details: # New ports collection makefile for: ghostscript # Date created: Tue Jun 10 21:58:54 CEST 1997 # Whom: Andreas Klemm # # $FreeBSD: ports/print/ghostscript6/Makefile,v 1.62 2001/01/19 \ 19:01:31 andreas Exp $ # For what its worth, /usr/ports/print/ghostscript6/files/ looks like this: -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 351 Nov 27 03:13 dj970.contrib.mak -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 128 Jan 18 09:19 escputil.contrib.mak -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 641 Apr 22 2000 lqx70ch.upp -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 641 Apr 22 2000 lqx70cl.upp -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 622 Apr 22 2000 lqx70cm.upp -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 8749 Jan 17 11:57 patch-aa -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 384 Mar 26 2000 patch-ab -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 2066 Jan 17 11:57 patch-ac -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 425 Aug 25 08:44 patch-ad -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 1349 Jan 17 11:57 patch-lib,gs_init.ps -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 2212 Apr 22 2000 stc740ih.upp -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 1127 Apr 22 2000 stc740p.upp -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 828 Apr 22 2000 stc740pl.upp This is the first time I've updated, but I would have though that the update available from, ftp://releng4.FreeBSD.org/pub/FreeBSD/snapshots/i386/ \ 4.2-20010211-STABLE/ was the most recent ports skeleton available. Am I wrong? Will I now have to cvsup my ports? Many regards, Richard Mahoney -- ------------------------ Richard Mahoney ------------------------- 78 Jeffreys Rd +64-3-351-5831 Christchurch New Zealand --------------- mailto:rbm49@csc.canterbury.ac.nz ---------------- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message