Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 03:29:03 -0500 From: Michael Scheidell <michael.scheidell@secnap.com> To: Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com> Cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: not for arch? use arch? don't care arch? Message-ID: <4F2A494F.5000807@secnap.com> In-Reply-To: <20120202051921.GC6434@lonesome.com> References: <4F296566.805@secnap.com> <20120202051921.GC6434@lonesome.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2/2/12 12:19 AM, Mark Linimon wrote:
> I'd say leave out the following stanza, and also leave out ONLY_FOR/
> NOT_FOR_ARCHS:
>
>> > -.if ${ARCH} == "sparc64"
>> > -BROKEN= Does not compile on sparc64
>> > -.endif
I don't have a sparc64 tb, and submitter doesn't either, and didn't test
it on sparc64.
I commit the pr and if I get a pavmail, I'll just commit it back again.
(and if I need to commit it back again, what is preferred language?)
--
Michael Scheidell, CTO
o: 561-999-5000
d: 561-948-2259
>*| *SECNAP Network Security Corporation
* Best Mobile Solutions Product of 2011
* Best Intrusion Prevention Product
* Hot Company Finalist 2011
* Best Email Security Product
* Certified SNORT Integrator
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned and certified safe by SpammerTrap(r).
For Information please see http://www.spammertrap.com/
______________________________________________________________________
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4F2A494F.5000807>