Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 13:11:41 +0900 (JST) From: Maho NAKATA <chat95@mac.com> To: truckman@FreeBSD.org Cc: maho@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-openoffice@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Build of 2.3.0 on 6-stable fails Message-ID: <20070928.131141.124084225.chat95@mac.com> In-Reply-To: <200709260411.l8Q4BD69011520@gw.catspoiler.org> References: <A808CBE5-BC21-4604-BFE8-15A7B468F2C7@altesco.nl> <200709260411.l8Q4BD69011520@gw.catspoiler.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
From: Don Lewis <truckman@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: Build of 2.3.0 on 6-stable fails Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 21:11:13 -0700 (PDT) > The trigger is WITH_TTF_BYTECODE_ENABLED=yes, which causes the patch > file files/optpatch-freetype to be applied to the freetype-2.2.1.patch > file in the OO source. The freetype-2.2.1.patch patch file was > apparently changed for the OO 2.3.0 release, and the optpatch-freetype > patch file in the port was not updated to match. Right. > Where things get interesting is that the patch program applies the first > chunk of optpatch-freetype and doesn't reject it, even though the lines > being changed don't match those in the patch. This causes the first > four chunks of freetype-2.2.1.patch to be applied to the wrong file in > the freetype source and to be rejected. This apparently confuses > gpatch, causing it to think that the rest of the chunks of > freetype-2.2.1.patch have already been applied. :) thanks for clarifying about that. > Here's a patch to a patch to a patch that should fix this problem: Huge thanks, and as this will never be covered by JCA, I can directly commit it to our FBSD port cvs repo. Please verify. All the best, -- Nakata Maho (maho@FreeBSD.org)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070928.131141.124084225.chat95>