From owner-freebsd-python@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Mar 25 16:30:01 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-python@smarthost.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [8.8.178.115]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 501B7FA6 for ; Mon, 25 Mar 2013 16:30:01 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206c::16:87]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4269BEB1 for ; Mon, 25 Mar 2013 16:30:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.6/8.14.6) with ESMTP id r2PGU1Ps070864 for ; Mon, 25 Mar 2013 16:30:01 GMT (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.6/8.14.6/Submit) id r2PGU0Hf070863; Mon, 25 Mar 2013 16:30:00 GMT (envelope-from gnats) Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 16:30:00 GMT Message-Id: <201303251630.r2PGU0Hf070863@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-python@FreeBSD.org Cc: From: John Marino Subject: Re: ports/177350: x11-toolkits/py-qt: [PATCH] fix provided from DragonFly Ports X-BeenThere: freebsd-python@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list Reply-To: John Marino List-Id: FreeBSD-specific Python issues List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 16:30:01 -0000 The following reply was made to PR ports/177350; it has been noted by GNATS. From: John Marino To: bug-followup@FreeBSD.org Cc: Subject: Re: ports/177350: x11-toolkits/py-qt: [PATCH] fix provided from DragonFly Ports Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 17:26:17 +0100 From that error log, I'd say there was a mistake applying the patch. There is no "ANY" definition in the compile line which the extra cxx flags are supposed to add. Yes, this patch is to be applied after the existing patch is applied. From that, you can of course regenerate a new single patch for configure. I think there is a misunderstanding about the nature of this PR. py-qt builds on DragonFly Ports because I patched it. It came up on the mail list that somebody wanted it fixed on FreeBSD. I had the solution and I spent a couple of minutes writing a PR to let FreeBSD Ports developers know that. I never meant that these patches were a drop-in fix. I didn't have the time to generate a patch and test in on FreeBSD. I was leaving that up to the port maintainer. In any case, I'd double check the work because applying this patch on top of the existing patches *does* fix it on DragonFly and NetBSD. The error in the log looks like the error I saw before any patch was applied, so that's why I think suspect the patch in this PR wasn't accurately applied.