Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 15:43:08 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 220355] dns/knot2: Use GCC on i386, Remove BROKEN on i386 Message-ID: <bug-220355-13-y0edxuTBNc@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-220355-13@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-220355-13@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D220355 Leo Vandewoestijne <freebsd@dns-lab.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment #183908|0 |1 is obsolete| | Attachment #183915| |maintainer-approval+ Flags| | --- Comment #2 from Leo Vandewoestijne <freebsd@dns-lab.com> --- Created attachment 183915 --> https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=3D183915&action= =3Dedit unbroken atomic issue i386 in dns/knot2 Hello Kubilay Kocak, > don't believe it is accepted to use CC=3Dclang > Thinking of it, actually it isn't needed to define it for !i386. > why is HAS_CONFIGURE used in the !i386 case instead of GNU_CONFIGURE (in = all cases) > Ah, re-reading 6.5.3 of porters manual I'd discover I had a wrong understan= ding of the two. > separate out logically distinct changes / combining CONFLICTS->CONFLICTS_= INSTALL > True, that's indeed not related to the BROKEN issue. Thanks for your pointers, I made the change even smaller. Attached patch is tested in poudriere, on both 10.3 as 11.0 and both i386 as amd64. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-220355-13-y0edxuTBNc>