Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2024 12:40:38 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: gecko@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 281182] www/firefox needs a rustix/src/backend/libc/fs/syscalls.rs patch analogous to the one under lang/rust/files/armv7/ Message-ID: <bug-281182-21738-l9mmZnty00@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-281182-21738@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-281182-21738@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D281182 --- Comment #1 from Mark Millard <marklmi26-fbsd@yahoo.com> --- (In reply to Mark Millard from comment #0) Hmm. I should have noted a limitation of my experiment with the patch for the armv7 context. lang/rust's Makefile has: .if exists(${PATCHDIR}/${ARCH}${BOOTSTRAPS_SUFFIX}) EXTRA_PATCHES+=3D ${PATCHDIR}/${ARCH}${BOOTSTRAPS_SUFFIX} .endif (with appropriate bsd.port.pre.mk and bsd.port.post.mk use) and it has: # find files/*/* files/armv7/patch-compiler_rustc__driver__impl_src_signal__handler.rs files/armv7/patch-vendor_rustix_src_backend_libc_fs_syscalls.rs files/riscv64/patch-vendor_openssl-src_src_lib.rs files/riscv64/patch-vendor_rustc__ap__rustc__target_src_spec_riscv64gc__unk= nown__freebsd.rs I did not replicate the files/armv7/ aspect of the structure for my test. One could imagine that I had used: files/armv7/third__party_rust_rustix_src_backend__libc_fs_syscalls.rs instead, with the additional Makefile content. This would avoid using the patch on anything but armv7, just like lang/rust does via using: files/armv7/patch-vendor_rustix_src_backend_libc_fs_syscalls.rs --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-281182-21738-l9mmZnty00>