Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 22:56:28 -0700 From: "David O'Brien" <obrien@FreeBSD.org> To: Michael Nottebrock <michaelnottebrock@gmx.net> Cc: ports-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/archivers/gzip Makefile ports/archivers/ucl Makefile ports/archivers/lzop Makefile ports/archivers/cabextract Makefile ports/archivers/dact Makefile ports/archivers/star Makefile ports/archivers/arj Makefile ports/archivers/tardy ... Message-ID: <20050412055628.GA6385@dragon.NUXI.org> In-Reply-To: <200504120603.10518.michaelnottebrock@gmx.net> References: <200504110804.j3B84fNs060515@repoman.freebsd.org> <200504120603.10518.michaelnottebrock@gmx.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 06:03:04AM +0200, Michael Nottebrock wrote: > On Monday, 11. April 2005 10:04, David E. O'Brien wrote: > > Log: > > Assist getting more ports working on AMD64 by obeying the > > Ports Collection documentation and use 'ARCH' rather than 'MACHINE_ARCH'. > > The porter's handbook, section 5.11 has an example that uses MACHINE_ARCH, > which is the template for a lot of MACHINE_ARCH usage in ports, I wondered how this got copied around so many times. > including a few places your commit missed, like bsd.gnome.mk, > bsd.kde.mk, bsd.gnustep.mk and, most importantly, bsd.port.subdir.mk > and bsd.port.mk itself (for setting CONFIGURE_TARGET(!)). I purposefully didn't touch Mk/*.mk. I have to assume the authors of them got it right. :-) > I'm not familiar with the crossbuilding logic in FreeBSD, so could somebody > who is make a definitive statement which of the two variables is > crossbuild-safe and then proceed to change the respective bits in the > porter's handbook and bsd.port.mk accordingly? I would be good to have the two copies of documentation to agree. -- -- David (obrien@FreeBSD.org)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050412055628.GA6385>