From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Thu Aug 17 11:38:32 2017 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DAFCCDDCB89 for ; Thu, 17 Aug 2017 11:38:32 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from scratch65535@att.net) Received: from mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (unknown [127.0.1.3]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB2C56D96A for ; Thu, 17 Aug 2017 11:38:32 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from scratch65535@att.net) Received: by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) id B774FDDCB88; Thu, 17 Aug 2017 11:38:32 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: ports@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6D21DDCB87 for ; Thu, 17 Aug 2017 11:38:32 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from scratch65535@att.net) Received: from nm1-vm9.access.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com (nm1-vm9.access.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com [216.109.114.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 706D96D969 for ; Thu, 17 Aug 2017 11:38:31 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from scratch65535@att.net) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=att.net; s=s1024; t=1502969735; bh=g3hrU3X7oFSULOiSOor3UX8AKmXTnliy5QpRsRl4ePg=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:References:In-Reply-To:From:Subject; b=nIVEwE8hAQe6niKCSt/ULWjOAKp8MkbjsIOwgeKU2YAG+ENF8ta3J57IMU0zcSdNHkW9pa7BvIuUCxUe2v+CQBpTXhHzdaMDtBF2IkZi1sCnosSxtxNp1P1orDhkIqRyhIPf8nFW7OEOP8J3M0Zq8YOm7E9GZvYvV3IAcDqX8IE= Received: from [66.196.81.155] by nm1.access.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 17 Aug 2017 11:35:35 -0000 Received: from [98.139.244.53] by tm1.access.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 17 Aug 2017 11:35:35 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by smtp115.sbc.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 17 Aug 2017 11:35:35 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 754624.58023.bm@smtp115.sbc.mail.bf1.yahoo.com X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-YMail-OSG: o_JQEMgVM1nu7ppLbLcQv0kp2KunyS4YiI.xMP0bb4ZsHlY iqEE5mHNaBqOPnnW6On3pDCB6oAp_OqhXRvFld3gGcVNFRmgf5CIXOz1lXbL LKVMa.LsnX3BdBzderhAmRMAemlgK3V2XERjLAl8dw1OIy5hhbu0stThrWHO 9s5vHr8Xwu9hEqZCnPD0Kn9C94Sr0vwAD_12luPzLiT.6oPTcm2Ew3_04abC AYoBzPj6bFJRXEPrlVgUHNrRojUoMfhl2CRQkkrdjPuconUBU9mP2FB7X96X wq2TztnRmkbAyJeeHhsDuJlA79I5VacWM1Or0uJMTjB0DyZEk2JjU2cN_pHx 3KDi37zi_kBdFYiDY.PV73SkVNoXjed27blxrgO27MusBXtmiacA5XMbyObo _Q5H_SrIUWkWBL0frR6HMsri0H5snHqWoyfv5alLhUqpIMcPODvBfIoinRea 9XxG6PWYo9VBTVrK42Ti0L5.cGip179l5xooKjW8AlBsUCkJApVtp.eiNjnP knPeh.DlKoBdyctKA0hqK2UQODg-- X-Yahoo-SMTP: pPvqnOaswBBbYZLVYFzvU7GaowLcbNioPp.aF8KvOjZk From: To: freebsd-ports Subject: Re: gtkmm30 fails to build under 10.3 Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2017 07:35:41 -0400 Message-ID: References: <9la9pch88dj02bs7ts4r1cfa7lgvnssh28__31177.0872948275$1502915924$gmane$org@4ax.com> <378r-8cln-wny@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 4.2/32.1118 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2017 11:38:33 -0000 [Default] On Thu, 17 Aug 2017 07:12:36 -0400, I wrote: >[Default] On Thu, 17 Aug 2017 10:45:58 +0200, Jan Beich > wrote: > >> writes: >> >>> [Default] On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 22:46:44 +0200, Jan Beich >>> wrote: >>> >>>> writes: >>>> >>>>> Package dependency requirement 'giomm-2.4 >= 2.49.1' could not be >>>>> satisfied. >> >>$ pkg which -o /usr/local/libdata/pkgconfig/giomm-2.4.pc >>/usr/local/libdata/pkgconfig/giomm-2.4.pc was installed by package devel/glibmm > >We might be talking at crossed purposes, here. The makefile did >indeed install 2.4, but that's not 2.49.1 (note that it's "2.49" >not "2.4.9"). 2.49 is not visible in my >freshly-updated-just-before-these-build-attempts ports tree. . > >The version number seems goofed up. Why would it ever imagine >that 2.4 is 2.49? There doesn't seem to be a rule that version >numbers are truncated to 1 digit after the decimal point. Okay, I'd not noticed til now that there does seem to be a truncate convention, which seems counterproductive t'me. So what looks like v2.4 could be v2.4 or v2.49 or even, theoretically, v2.49999. Not much information in a single digit. But in any event it's not 2.49, and the "2.4" I installed is the only "2.4" in the ports tree. Reinstalling won't help.