Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 18:52:49 -0500 (EST) From: Chuck Robey <chuckr@glue.umd.edu> To: Dave Babler <dbabler@Rigel.orionsys.com> Cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: wwwcount-2.3 Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.95.961110185037.18943A-100000@protocol.eng.umd.edu> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSI.3.95.961110132533.15944A-100000@Rigel.orionsys.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 10 Nov 1996, Dave Babler wrote: > > > On Sat, 9 Nov 1996, Chuck Robey wrote: > > > > I've checked, and if everyone running 2.1 and 2.1.5 would grab a copy of > > current's bsd.port.mk, it has no negative impact, and will eliminate the > > majority of build failures for new ports. There are a small subset of > > ports that depend on differences in /usr/include and whatnot, but that's a > > real small subset. > > > > Good Advice: update your bsd.port.mk file in /usr/share/mk. > > > I'm running 2.1.5-stable and just grabbed the bsd.port.mk file for > -current. I'd had problems before making the slang-lynx (2.6) port and was > informed that the ports collection now only applied to -current. The mak > breaks in exactly the same place as it used to - it cannot apply any of > the patches. > > Is this port of lynx one of the real small subset, or is something else > hosed here? That doesn't sound like a compatibility problem, it sounds like something is missing from your slang-lynx port. Why don't you post the error return you get? ----------------------------+----------------------------------------------- Chuck Robey | Interests include any kind of voice or data chuckr@eng.umd.edu | communications topic, C programming, and Unix. 9120 Edmonston Ct #302 | Greenbelt, MD 20770 | I run Journey2 and picnic, both FreeBSD (301) 220-2114 | version 3.0 current -- and great FUN! ----------------------------+-----------------------------------------------
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.OSF.3.95.961110185037.18943A-100000>