From owner-freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Aug 30 16:50:10 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports-bugs@hub.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D1B416A420 for ; Thu, 30 Aug 2007 16:50:10 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::28]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54E4D13C467 for ; Thu, 30 Aug 2007 16:50:10 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (gnats@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id l7UGo9dv053255 for ; Thu, 30 Aug 2007 16:50:09 GMT (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.1/8.14.1/Submit) id l7UGo9JS053254; Thu, 30 Aug 2007 16:50:09 GMT (envelope-from gnats) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 16:50:09 GMT Message-Id: <200708301650.l7UGo9JS053254@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org From: Nick Leuta Cc: Subject: Re: ports/115841: [MAINTAINER UPDATE] ftp/bsdftpd-ssl: fix problems with gcc 4 X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Nick Leuta List-Id: Ports bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 16:50:10 -0000 The following reply was made to PR ports/115841; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Nick Leuta To: Sergey Matveychuk Cc: bug-followup@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ports/115841: [MAINTAINER UPDATE] ftp/bsdftpd-ssl: fix problems with gcc 4 Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 20:14:35 +0400 Sergey Matveychuk wrote: > It's a quite strange way to fix build: > +- BIO_printf(out, "write to %08X (%d bytes => %ld (%X))\n", > +- bio, argi, ret, ret); > ++/* BIO_printf(out, "write to %08X (%d bytes => %ld (%X))\n", > ++ bio, argi, ret, ret);*/ > > It looks like a functional change. > Are you sure? Yes, I am sure. As a developer of this program I think that those lines can be removed at all ;) (because they implement very rarely used debugging capabilities) Those lines are the legacy of the "old good times" of ssleay (the predecessor of OpenSSL)... -- SkyNick