From owner-cvs-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Mar 21 02:54:10 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EC6516A4CE; Sun, 21 Mar 2004 02:54:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at [128.131.111.2]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BC0843D31; Sun, 21 Mar 2004 02:54:10 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from gerald@pfeifer.com) Received: from [128.131.111.60] (acrux [128.131.111.60]) by vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4813013796; Sun, 21 Mar 2004 11:54:03 +0100 (CET) Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 11:54:05 +0100 (CET) From: Gerald Pfeifer To: David O'Brien In-Reply-To: <20040320195311.GB89343@dragon.nuxi.com> Message-ID: References: <200403170818.i2H8IFYU008824@repoman.freebsd.org> <20040317182432.GA96023@dragon.nuxi.com> <20040320195311.GB89343@dragon.nuxi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org cc: ports-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/lang/gcc34 Makefile X-BeenThere: cvs-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the ports tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 10:54:10 -0000 On Sat, 20 Mar 2004, David O'Brien wrote: > Actually this is a bug in your pkg-plist. I just tested this with your > latest commits (Makefile rev 1.166, pkg-plist rev 1.55). This patch > (which I just committed) makes the existing breakage obvious: > > @dirrm libexec/gcc/%%GNU_HOST%%/%%GCC_VER%% > +@dirrm libexec/gcc/%%GNU_HOST%% > +@dirrm libexec/gcc > %%LIBJAVA%%share/java/libgcj-%%GCC_VER%%.jar Won't this break if more than gcc3x port has been installed? (I'll shortly mark them as CONFLICTing, but in the longer term this should work.) > If you look at ports/Mk/bsd.port.mk, you'll see that CONFIGURE_TARGET is > defined as ${MACHINE_ARCH}-portbld-freebsd${OSREL}, which is effectively > the same as the definition I removed and you re-added. I know that, and in fact I had tried something similar to your original patch a few weeks ago. :-> That's why I immediately got alerted when seeing your patch. > Can we agree to this patch now? > > .if ${ARCH} == "amd64" > CONFIGURE_TARGET= x86_64-portbld-freebsd${OSREL} > -.else > -CONFIGURE_TARGET= ${ARCH}-portbld-freebsd${OSREL} > .endif Sure, iff it survives full testing (including a `make deinstall` that really removes all files installed by the port). Gerald -- Gerald Pfeifer (Jerry) gerald@pfeifer.com http://www.pfeifer.com/gerald/