From owner-freebsd-openoffice@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Aug 19 22:22:42 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: openoffice@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-openoffice@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39E9F16A4DA for ; Sat, 19 Aug 2006 22:22:42 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from sean@mcneil.com) Received: from mail.mcneil.com (mcneil.com [24.199.45.54]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCEA943D4C for ; Sat, 19 Aug 2006 22:22:41 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from sean@mcneil.com) Received: from localhost (localhost.mcneil.com [127.0.0.1]) by mail.mcneil.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92E2BF1BF2; Sat, 19 Aug 2006 15:22:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mcneil.com Received: from mail.mcneil.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (triton.mcneil.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dEUMoeS6apNQ; Sat, 19 Aug 2006 15:22:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mcneil.com (mcneil.com [24.199.45.54]) by mail.mcneil.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C459EF184B; Sat, 19 Aug 2006 15:22:39 -0700 (PDT) From: Sean McNeil To: Stephen Montgomery-Smith In-Reply-To: <44E78D52.6040305@math.missouri.edu> References: <1156012505.63467.0.camel@triton.mcneil.com> <44E77A34.3080606@math.missouri.edu> <1156021188.1452.11.camel@triton.mcneil.com> <44E77E2A.2080808@math.missouri.edu> <1156022154.2020.4.camel@triton.mcneil.com> <44E78D52.6040305@math.missouri.edu> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2006 15:22:39 -0700 Message-Id: <1156026159.24431.9.camel@triton.mcneil.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.6.3 FreeBSD GNOME Team Port Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: openoffice@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 2.0 fails to compile on amd64 X-BeenThere: freebsd-openoffice@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting OpenOffice to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2006 22:22:42 -0000 On Sat, 2006-08-19 at 17:14 -0500, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote: > Sean McNeil wrote: > > On Sat, 2006-08-19 at 16:10 -0500, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote: > > > >>Sean McNeil wrote: > >> > >>>On Sat, 2006-08-19 at 15:53 -0500, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>>Sean McNeil wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>I get the following error: > >>>>> > >>>>>In file included from conditn.c:37: > >>>>>system.h:542: error: conflicting types for 'gethostbyname_r' > >>>>>/usr/include/netdb.h:228: error: previous declaration of > >>>>>'gethostbyname_r' was here > >>>>>dmake: Error code 1, while making '../../unxfbsdx.pro/obj/conditn.obj' > >>>>>'---* tg_merge.mk *---' > >>>>> > >>>>>ERROR: Error 65280 occurred while > >>>>>making /usr/ports/editors/openoffice.org-2.0/work/OOD680_m1/sal/osl/unx > >>>>>dmake: Error code 1, while making 'build_instsetoo_native' > >>>>>'---* *---' > >>>>>*** Error code 255 > >>>> > >>>>The problem you have (which by the way will only occur with a very > >>>>recent version of FreeBSD 6.1) was fixed in Openoffice 2.0.3, but when > >>>>2.0.4.m1 was ported (probably yesterday or today) the porter forgot to > >>>>carry across the fix. My plan is to wait until the porter realizes this > >>>>and fixes it. The problem is unrelated to amd64. > >>> > >>> > >>>OK, thanks. The fix would appear to be fairly obvious in that includes > >>>of netdb.h should not be done in system.h when the replacement > >>>gethostbyname_r is used. I see that there is a direct include and it is > >>>included again when NETBSD or SCO is defined. Seems to me the first > >>>instance should just be removed. > >>> > >>>2.0.4.m1.. is that a development release? Shouldn't it have been update > >>>only for -devel? > >> > >>Well the 2.0.3 did have these particular problems fixed (and if you want > >>to fix it yourself you should really try to look at the openoffice port > >>of a few days ago, because there are similar problems with other *_r > >>functions), but it had some other problem which ended with a kind of > >>"spinlock" error. My impression is that this was a very difficult > >>problem to figure out, and so my guess is that the porter jumped at the > >>chance when a later version came out, in hope of fixing this. > >> > >>My impression is that OO is a really hard port to maintain. When it > >>works, it works really well, and I do a "make package" as well as "make > >>install" so that it is easy for me to reinstall at a later date when the > >>OO port is going through a season of not working. If you are in need of > >>a working OO right now try to get a package from somewhere. I could > >>even give you mine if you like. > > > > > > Thanks for the offer, but I already have OO installed. I installed it > > previous to the recent update by maho in cvs just 8 hours ago. > > portupgrade is what brought the issue to my attention. The version I > > have installed is working without problems. > > > > It is a shame that people update ports to fix issues with -CURRENT and > > break functionality for everyone else that tracks the stable builds. > > I think that the functionality you are talking about was broken because > of very recent changes to FreeBSD 6.1, so I think it is not right to > blame it on people following -CURRENT, rather your problem is that you > are following -STABLE to closely. I am guessing that your previous good > make of OO took place quite a while ago (maybe a month or so). Yep, you are right. I jumped too quick to a conclusion. It is because -STABLE added prototypes for re-entrant versions about a month ago.