From owner-freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jul 18 16:30:24 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-ports-bugs@hub.freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-ports-bugs@hub.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B520516A4DE for ; Tue, 18 Jul 2006 16:30:24 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [216.136.204.21]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B34143D77 for ; Tue, 18 Jul 2006 16:30:23 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (gnats@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k6IGUNeQ033877 for ; Tue, 18 Jul 2006 16:30:23 GMT (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.13.4/8.13.4/Submit) id k6IGUNG4033873; Tue, 18 Jul 2006 16:30:23 GMT (envelope-from gnats) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 16:30:23 GMT Message-Id: <200607181630.k6IGUNG4033873@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org From: Dmitry Marakasov Cc: Subject: Re: ports/100486: SDL port breaks compatibility in several ways X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Dmitry Marakasov List-Id: Ports bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 16:30:24 -0000 The following reply was made to PR ports/100486; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Dmitry Marakasov To: bug-followup@FreeBSD.org Cc: Subject: Re: ports/100486: SDL port breaks compatibility in several ways Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 20:23:44 +0400 * mark@darklogik.org (mark@darklogik.org) wrote: > >Description: > The libSDL port (devel/sdl12) has a number of problems. First of all, > for apparently no reason whatsoever, the 'config' binary 'sdl-config' > is renamed to 'sdl11-config' which breaks compatibility with the > majority of build scripts unless they take extra pains to support > FreeBSD (which precisely goes against the point of using SDL in the > first place). I somewhat second this pr, REINPLACE'ing sdl-config and #include