Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 19:08:13 -0400 From: Mike Barcroft <mike@FreeBSD.ORG> To: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Cc: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Removing wait union Message-ID: <20020604190813.D98086@espresso.q9media.com> In-Reply-To: <20020604140957.A63493@xor.obsecurity.org>; from kris@obsecurity.org on Tue, Jun 04, 2002 at 02:09:57PM -0700 References: <20020602010108.B16166@espresso.q9media.com> <20020603011903.Y2566-100000@gamplex.bde.org> <20020603190818.E16166@espresso.q9media.com> <20020604140957.A63493@xor.obsecurity.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> writes: > 19 ports failed, and 3152+465 port builds were attempted. Assuming > the same percentage of the rest will fail that comes to around 36 > ports failing out of 7000 in the collection. > > I'd be happy with the patch going in as long as someone commits to > fixing them. I think <sys/wait.h> is currently C++ unsafe, so it's likely that the C++ breakage isn't hiding additional bugs. As a side effect, I believe this patch fixes C++, though I haven't checked. I'm willing to investigate the ports that break, if you can provide a list. Best regards, Mike Barcroft To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020604190813.D98086>