From owner-freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Apr 27 15:30:07 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports-bugs@hub.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8084237B401 for ; Sun, 27 Apr 2003 15:30:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [216.136.204.21]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24FB743FAF for ; Sun, 27 Apr 2003 15:30:07 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (gnats@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h3RMU6Up068381 for ; Sun, 27 Apr 2003 15:30:06 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h3RMU60Q068380; Sun, 27 Apr 2003 15:30:06 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 15:30:06 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200304272230.h3RMU60Q068380@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org From: Anish Mistry Subject: Re: ports/51251: Avidemux port update to 0.9 Supersedes ports/51012 and ports/51220 X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: Anish Mistry List-Id: Ports bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 22:30:07 -0000 The following reply was made to PR ports/51251; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Anish Mistry To: Cc: Subject: Re: ports/51251: Avidemux port update to 0.9 Supersedes ports/51012 and ports/51220 Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 18:39:15 -0400 (EDT) :). Ok, we're good to go. Anish Mistry amistry@am-productions.biz AM Productions http://am-productions.biz/ On Sun, 27 Apr 2003, Ulrich Spoerlein wrote: > On Sun, 27.04.2003 at 16:39:24 -0400, Anish Mistry wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Are you sure you are applying the patch in the PR correctly? Because > > that header part is already changed in the 0.9. It looks like you are > > trying to compile rc1 rather than 0.9. > > WARGH! > > 101, 110, what's the difference anyway? :) > > Sorry for the noise, the newest port compiles fine (and should be > committed ASAP :) >