Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1999 16:12:05 -0700 (MST) From: Erik <erikk@infowest.com> To: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG, mantar@pacbell.net Subject: Re: ports/15029: XFree86 3.3.5 port is labeled as broken andso fails to build at all Message-ID: <19991124231205.16A6920F03@infowest.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Manfred Antar wrote: > > At 02:10 PM 11/24/99 -0800, Erik wrote: > >The following reply was made to PR ports/15029; it has been noted by GNATS. > > > >From: "Erik" <erikk@infowest.com> > >To: Bill@infowest.com, Fumerol@infowest.com > >Cc: > >Subject: Re: ports/15029: XFree86 3.3.5 port is labeled as broken and so > >fails to build at all > >Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1999 14:53:05 -0700 (MST) > > > > Bill Fumerol <billf@chc-chimes.com> said: > > >On Sun, 21 Nov 1999 erikk@infowest.com wrote: > > > > > >> I just barely installed 3.3-STABLE from the November 19th snapshot > > then yesterday (20th) CVSup'd STABLE and PORTS and succeeded in > > bu> > > Try installing X cleanly from the ports collection (as of Nov. 20th > > 1999) on any 3.3-STABLE box and it will fail because the Makefile > > says the port is broken. > > > > > >Thank you for this insight into the ports system. If the port is marked > > >broken, one would assume there is a reason behind it. > > > > > >The port will have to be fixed to not think cpp is at /lib/cpp, fixed > > >to use -lcrypt appropriatly, fixed to actually _build_ X servers, fixed > > > > > to not try and use its own getenv() and a couple of other things first. > > > > > >Patches accepted. > > > > > >-- > > >- bill fumerola - billf@chc-ch> > that are affected by the getenv() problem and/or the -lcrypt problem but > > I must > > not be using them (I then built the KDE port and its working great on > > top of the > > "broken" X port). So what's up? Why cannot it NOT be labeled as broken > > in the > > meantime since it seems to work just fine for basic X workstation > > stuff? Is there > > a mechanism for ports that would permit something like "WARNING: There > > are several > > problems with this port that have not yet been addressed including 1) > > <insert problem> > > 2) .... N) Do you wish to ATTEMPT to build this port ANYWAY? (y/N):" > > and let me > > as th Okay, that explains it. Is there not a way to label a port as broken ONLY for the branch it is really broken on? Since I am running 3.3-STABLE it compiled just fine and it sounds like it need not be labeled as broken for the 3.X branch. ERIK To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19991124231205.16A6920F03>