From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Feb 14 02:37:07 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E691A16A4CE; Mon, 14 Feb 2005 02:37:07 +0000 (GMT) Received: from obsecurity.dyndns.org (CPE0050040655c8-CM00111ae02aac.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com [69.199.47.57]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C9C443D2F; Mon, 14 Feb 2005 02:37:07 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from kris@obsecurity.org) Received: by obsecurity.dyndns.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id CE19D51461; Sun, 13 Feb 2005 18:37:06 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 18:37:06 -0800 From: Kris Kennaway To: Sean McNeil Message-ID: <20050214023706.GA27347@xor.obsecurity.org> References: <1108344209.2954.2.camel@server.mcneil.com> <20050214020127.GA44039@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <1108348247.26515.17.camel@server.mcneil.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="xHFwDpU9dbj6ez1V" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1108348247.26515.17.camel@server.mcneil.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i cc: das@freebsd.org cc: current@freebsd.org cc: Steve Kargl Subject: Re: palm/pilot-link needs to be fixed for matherr change (was Re: matherr disappeared?) X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 02:37:08 -0000 --xHFwDpU9dbj6ez1V Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Feb 13, 2005 at 06:30:47PM -0800, Sean McNeil wrote: > First of all, I do read current as I am subscribed. >=20 > > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2005-February/046426= .html >=20 > Finally, that thread is related to tcl 8.0.5 for i386. I had no reason > to suspect it had anything to do with my situation as I have an amd64 > system with tcl-8.4.7 which compiled without any issue. Perhaps I > simply deleted it since I am not using i386. Many tcl-derived ports inherited the same bugs. > P.S. Aren't changes like that suppose to go in UPDATING? No, UPDATING is for special steps required for updating your ports. It doesn't address port bugs that are discovered; those go in a BROKEN tag in the port in question, if they can't be fixed immediately. Kris --xHFwDpU9dbj6ez1V Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFCEA7SWry0BWjoQKURAjdEAKCx0ysPtAIsCssbBqbvpYFZrNiNRQCfT9Ip oy0QAaWWtb3X2Dq81MVADtg= =Ks1a -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --xHFwDpU9dbj6ez1V--