Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 18:57:42 -0300 From: Raphael Kubo da Costa <rakuco@FreeBSD.org> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: raptor: should there be a note in UPDATING? Message-ID: <87628aio89.fsf@FreeBSD.org> References: <CABG_4jnNGtn5Ge_tgakEHUv%2Bh5YbP3e-V1PmwMXhT9xNO9k1Xw@mail.gmail.com> <87y5l74yoo.fsf@FreeBSD.org> <87pq6j4xj9.fsf@FreeBSD.org> <87obm2iyig.fsf@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Raphael Kubo da Costa <rakuco@FreeBSD.org> writes:
> Raphael Kubo da Costa <rakuco@FreeBSD.org> writes:
>
>> Raphael Kubo da Costa <rakuco@FreeBSD.org> writes:
>>
>>> Someone (TM) should check whether the first include is really necessary,
>>> or if the code can't include <raptor2/raptor.h>, or if
>>> -I/usr/local/include/raptor2 can't be passed before
>>> -I/usr/local/include.
>>
>> Everything built fine without the {CPP,LD}FLAGS additions here. I'm
>> tempted to commit that change, but wonder if it will end up breaking
>> some weird setup...
>
> Coming to think of it again, removing those lines changing {CPP,LD}FLAGS
> would have an impact if one is using openssl from ports, as the check
> for MD5() in libcrypto.so would be done for the library in base, not
> ${LOCALBASE}.
I think I've finally fixed the issue in r302968.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?87628aio89.fsf>