Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 15:05:07 -0700 From: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> To: Nali Toja <nalitoja@gmail.com> Cc: FreeBSD Current <freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org>, "freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org" <freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: Patch for ports on 10-current Message-ID: <4E936C13.2060605@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <86ipnw4id1.fsf@gmail.com> References: <4E935C9C.2090502@FreeBSD.org> <86ipnw4id1.fsf@gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 10/10/2011 15:00, Nali Toja wrote: > Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> writes: > >> Until the pointy-haireds come up with a better solution, here is a patch >> that incorporates work that others have done into a manageable form so >> that those interested in working with ports on 10-current have some >> tools to work with: >> >> http://dougbarton.us/bam.patch > [...] >> +.if ${OSVERSION} >= 1000000 && !defined(NO_LIBTOOL_FIXED) > > The issue does not lie in OSVERSION but in OSREL. So, why not be smarter > and detect if a user has UNAME_r workaround in environment Because by doing it the way I did it the user can apply both fixes, or either fix individually by using the right combination of knobs. -- Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much. -- OK Go Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS. Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4E936C13.2060605>