From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu Jan 10 22:10:09 2008
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: ports@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CC7616A478
	for <ports@freebsd.org>; Thu, 10 Jan 2008 22:10:09 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from kris@FreeBSD.org)
Received: from weak.local (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::28])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4920E13C4D1;
	Thu, 10 Jan 2008 22:10:08 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from kris@FreeBSD.org)
Message-ID: <478697BF.5020604@FreeBSD.org>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 23:10:07 +0100
From: Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.org>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Macintosh/20071031)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Robert Huff <roberthuff@rcn.com>
References: <20080110174126.GA45584@glider>
	<18310.35480.307764.676937@jerusalem.litteratus.org>
In-Reply-To: <18310.35480.307764.676937@jerusalem.litteratus.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: ports@freebsd.org, James Cook <james.cook@utoronto.ca>
Subject: Re: freebsd-games: hack needs -fwritable-strings
X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD <freebsd-ports.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
	<mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
	<mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 22:10:09 -0000

Robert Huff wrote:
> James Cook writes:
> 
>>  This seems to be caused by line 170 of hack.u_init.c, which
>>  attempts to modify a string constant.
>>  
>>  SOLUTION:
>>  Add -fwritable-strings to CFLAGS in hack's Makefile.  (There's
>>  already a patch that changes that line of the Makefile, so this
>>  is easy to change.)
> 
> 	Has something changed in the definition of correctly written
> code while I was away at the funny farm?  Why is the solution not
> "Don't modify a costant."? 

This code has been largely untouched since the 1980s :)

Kris