From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jul 9 17:45:10 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37F4E106566B for ; Wed, 9 Jul 2008 17:45:10 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from david@vizion2000.net) Received: from dns1.vizion2000.net (77-99-36-42.cable.ubr04.chap.blueyonder.co.uk [77.99.36.42]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F19548FC1D for ; Wed, 9 Jul 2008 17:45:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from david@vizion2000.net) Received: by dns1.vizion2000.net (Postfix, from userid 1007) id 9C5EE1CC2F; Wed, 9 Jul 2008 11:08:44 -0700 (PDT) From: David Southwell Organization: Voice and Vision To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org, d@delphij.net Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 11:08:44 -0700 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.7 References: <200807081007.14826.david@vizion2000.net> <200807090753.32041.david@vizion2000.net> <4874F63E.5010703@delphij.net> In-Reply-To: <4874F63E.5010703@delphij.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200807091108.44419.david@vizion2000.net> Cc: Subject: Re: x11-toolkits/py-wxPython24 Broken 64bit Fix????? X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2008 17:45:10 -0000 On Wednesday 09 July 2008 10:32:46 Xin LI wrote: > David Southwell wrote: > | On Tuesday 08 July 2008 15:24:52 Xin LI wrote: > |> David Southwell wrote: > |> | Is a fix likely for: > |> | > |> | x11-toolkits/py-wxPython24: > |> | is marked as broken: Does not build on 64-bit architectures > |> | > |> | Thanks for the info > |> > |> I have taken a look at this, it seems that this is not trivial work. Do > |> you have problem using newer wxPython versions? > |> > |> Cheers, > | > | Thanks > | > | wxPython28 works so I guess we can forget about 24 > > That would be great :) > > | Portupgrade -a was determined to try 24!!! > > Erm... Do you mean that we have some port that depends on 24? Perhaps > we should fix it anyway... > > Cheers, I think it the port that depended upon 24 that had not been upgraded. David