From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Nov 3 18:12:23 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5382B1065673 for ; Thu, 3 Nov 2011 18:12:23 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bf1783@googlemail.com) Received: from mail-wy0-f182.google.com (mail-wy0-f182.google.com [74.125.82.182]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2C8F8FC1C for ; Thu, 3 Nov 2011 18:12:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wyg36 with SMTP id 36so2077868wyg.13 for ; Thu, 03 Nov 2011 11:12:21 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:reply-to:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=92E3TWfgZawLeAio4VJtTicljPvX7+7vHofrhjP41R8=; b=x0aa2M1M8oftpB6yR1FkqczGcpd/5dZd4E2acXHXKppEW8yJfVSh0IZx7cPVuiBKQh lTkIp+IFSiDljg0pAwLbMQhHp0ctyesYgf7Ml8G3BpHRxmepke0B1ROqhhB2Rc/DBzUb ET+ydRua+322fd0OnIfN/OTGfSjxbv/yPmTjU= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.227.206.147 with SMTP id fu19mr13360004wbb.22.1320342170073; Thu, 03 Nov 2011 10:42:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.180.98.5 with HTTP; Thu, 3 Nov 2011 10:42:50 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2011 13:42:50 -0400 Message-ID: From: "b. f." To: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org, Matthias Apitz Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: Subject: Re: 10.0-CUR r226986 && ports (general) X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: bf1783@gmail.com List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2011 18:12:23 -0000 > > > It turns out that the problem is more general! A lot of ./configure > > > scripts are detecting in 10-CUR that they can't or should not build > > > shared libs; the problem is that the OS is detected now as > > > > As a temporary workaround, add "WITH_FBSD10_FIX=1" to /etc/make.conf. > > ports/UPDATING and some of the mails in the archive of -current > recommend setting UNAME_r=9.0-CURRENT; is this the same or which method > is prefered? No, it is not the same. You can either masquerade, by setting UNAME_r and OSVERSION, or by editing the headers and scripts that define them; or you can use WITH_FBSD10_FIX for ports that define HAS_CONFIGURE (which is implied by USE_AUTOTOOLS and GNU_CONFIGURE). Right now the masquerading is probably safer, because there are some problems with the fix that are still being resolved -- and a few ports that may fail despite the fix. But of course if you help to test without masquerading, these problems will be resolved sooner. b.