From owner-freebsd-hackers Sat Dec 15 13:25:26 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from ns1.rwwa.com (ns1.rwwa.com [66.92.67.110]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E40CD37B41A for ; Sat, 15 Dec 2001 13:25:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from rwwa.com (harvey.rwwa.com [192.124.97.11]) by ns1.rwwa.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48EDA322A for ; Sat, 15 Dec 2001 16:25:23 -0500 (EST) X-Mailer: exmh version 2.3.1 01/18/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: wchar.h, ports packages, and FBSD version? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2001 16:25:31 -0500 From: Robert Withrow Message-Id: <20011215212523.48EDA322A@ns1.rwwa.com> Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Hi: I've installed the python-2.1.1 package on a 4.3-RELEASE system, and in the process of building zope, discovered that python is configured with: /* Define if the compiler provides a wchar.h header file. */ #define HAVE_WCHAR_H 1 ...Which I gather is a lie for 4.3. I'm assuming that either STABLE or CURRENT *does* have wchar.h. This leads to questions: 1 - Are port packages built on a CURRENT system? 2 - Is it wrong to install packages on anything but a bleedin' edge current system? 3 - If it isn't wrong, then what is the expected way of dealing with problems like the above? Maybe I'm goofy, but it seems like packages should be built for *compatibility* which would mean building them on something older than either STABLE or CURRENT, since they are then automatically compatible with newer systems. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Withrow, R.W. Withrow Associates, Swampscott MA, witr@rwwa.COM To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message