From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Oct 11 13:55:10 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD8016D2 for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 13:55:10 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ubm@u-boot-man.de) Received: from mail.upper.net (mail.upper.net [62.75.224.33]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2EAFD26E4 for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 13:55:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ubm.strangled.net (mail.upper.net [62.75.224.33]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.upper.net (8.12.10/8.12.10/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id r9BDt4wK007534 for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 15:55:04 +0200 Received: from ubm.strangled.net ([92.230.221.219] helo=ubm.strangled.net) by ASSP.nospam.UpPeRnEt; 11 Oct 2013 15:55:04 +0200 Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 15:55:03 +0200 From: Marc "UBM" Bocklet To: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: /usr/local/lib /usr/bin/ld: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=F8:?= invalid DSO for symbol Message-Id: <20131011155503.1ec20b4aa70920beca4b7f98@u-boot-man.de> In-Reply-To: <20131011070556.e31c63fce9d60266c23bda9e@u-boot-man.de> References: <20131010215148.6d4e724952052b8833133264@gmail.com> <20131010215855.GA90129@direwolf.aux.io> <20131011070556.e31c63fce9d60266c23bda9e@u-boot-man.de> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.3.0 (GTK+ 2.24.19; amd64-portbld-freebsd10.0) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 15:19:40 +0000 X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 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: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 13:55:10 -0000 On Fri, 11 Oct 2013 07:05:56 +0200 Marc "UBM" Bocklet wrote: > > Add the following to the offending ports' Makefile (I am upto 6): > > LDFLAGS+= -ltinfow > > That worked perfectly, going to try it out on the other six offenders > thus evening. Thanks a lot! I am wondering though as to why that workaround is needed now? Bye Marc