From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Fri May 21 02:48:30 2010 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 1C688106568F for ; Fri, 21 May 2010 02:48:30 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mail2.fluidhosting.com (mx22.fluidhosting.com [204.14.89.5]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A92418FC29 for ; Fri, 21 May 2010 02:48:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 14965 invoked by uid 399); 21 May 2010 02:48:29 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO ?192.168.0.145?) (dougb@dougbarton.us@127.0.0.1) by localhost with ESMTPAM; 21 May 2010 02:48:29 -0000 X-Originating-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-Sender: dougb@dougbarton.us Message-ID: <4BF5F47C.1010509@FreeBSD.org> Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 19:48:28 -0700 From: Doug Barton Organization: http://SupersetSolutions.com/ User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100317 Thunderbird/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: eculp References: <20100520142452.111014tebuyeocqo@econet.encontacto.net> <4BF58E14.3050000@FreeBSD.org> <20100520183258.12803uuar50i044k@econet.encontacto.net> In-Reply-To: <20100520183258.12803uuar50i044k@econet.encontacto.net> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1 OpenPGP: id=1A1ABC84 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-ports Subject: Re: Problem with apr1 that could be shared with libX11 and libSM that I have reported previously. 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: Fri, 21 May 2010 02:48:30 -0000 On 5/20/2010 4:32 PM, eculp wrote: > Quoting Doug Barton : > >> On 5/20/2010 12:24 PM, eculp wrote: >>> I used postmaster and the results for trying to builds apr1 can be seen >>> at http://www.vitalagua.mx//apr1.txt >>> >>> To me it seems to be related to configuration versions of tools like >>> automake and autoconf but I can't find it. >> >> This doesn't look like a portmaster problem, can you try again simply >> building in the port directory and see if you get the same result? > > Doug, I apologize for having even insinuated that postmaster might be at > fault. Oh, I wasn't concerned about that, don't worry. I just wanted to be sure that portmaster actually was NOT at fault. :) Doug -- ... and that's just a little bit of history repeating. -- Propellerheads Improve the effectiveness of your Internet presence with a domain name makeover! http://SupersetSolutions.com/