From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Oct 10 22:05:07 2011
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org
Received: from mx2.freebsd.org (mx2.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::35])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E446D106566C;
	Mon, 10 Oct 2011 22:05:07 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org)
Received: from 172-17-198-245.globalsuite.net (hub.freebsd.org
	[IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::36])
	by mx2.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A570814F33B;
	Mon, 10 Oct 2011 22:05:07 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <4E936C13.2060605@FreeBSD.org>
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 15:05:07 -0700
From: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org>
Organization: http://SupersetSolutions.com/
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64;
	rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20111001 Thunderbird/7.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Nali Toja <nalitoja@gmail.com>
References: <4E935C9C.2090502@FreeBSD.org> <86ipnw4id1.fsf@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <86ipnw4id1.fsf@gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: undefined
OpenPGP: id=1A1ABC84
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: FreeBSD Current <freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org>,
	"freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org" <freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org>
Subject: Re: Patch for ports on 10-current
X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD <freebsd-ports.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
	<mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
	<mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 22:05:08 -0000

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/