From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Nov 8 05:37:02 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C29316A41A; Thu, 8 Nov 2007 05:37:02 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from sem@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mail.ciam.ru (ns.ciam.ru [213.247.195.75]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2572E13C48A; Thu, 8 Nov 2007 05:37:02 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from sem@FreeBSD.org) Received: from [87.240.16.199] (helo=solem.sem-home.ciam.ru) by mail.ciam.ru with esmtpa (Exim 4.x) id 1IpzWT-000GqO-GB; Thu, 08 Nov 2007 08:01:45 +0300 Message-ID: <473297D0.6010705@FreeBSD.org> Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 08:00:00 +0300 From: Sergey Matveychuk User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (X11/20070826) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Denis Barov , freebsd-net@freebsd.org, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org, thompsa@freebsd.org, ports@FreeBSD.org References: <20071107182928.GA66533@sepulcator.local.yandex.ru> In-Reply-To: <20071107182928.GA66533@sepulcator.local.yandex.ru> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=KOI8-R; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Subject: Re: net-mgmt/bsd-airtools broken not because of gcc4 X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 05:37:02 -0000 Denis Barov wrote: > Hi all! > I found, that port net-mgmt/bsd-airtools marked as broken: > > BROKEN= Does not compile with GCC 4.2 > > but, it's not really so. > > It's broken after Wed Jul 11 21:25:48 2007 UTC commit by > thompsa@freebsd.org, when some ioctls was deleted from kernel. > > For example, after patching /usr/include/dev/wi/if_wavelan_ieee.h > bsd-airtools compiled well: > > --- /usr/include/dev/wi/if_wavelan_ieee.h 2007-11-07 > 19:36:15.000000000 +0300 > +++ /usr/src/sys/dev/wi/if_wavelan_ieee.h 2007-07-12 > 01:25:48.000000000 +0400 > @@ -59,7 +59,7 @@ > */ > #define WI_MAX_DATALEN 512 > > -#if 1 > +#if 0 > struct wi_req { > u_int16_t wi_len; > u_int16_t wi_type; > > > But, still missing some ioctls. dstumbler said > error: unable to ioctl device socket: Invalid argument > > May be I can do something helpful? I guess you should back not just these header definitions but ioctl implementations too. Or ask thompsa if you could use something instead. -- Dixi. Sem.