Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2017 13:55:49 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 212825] maintainer-update: Update security/radamsa from 0.3 to 0.5. Message-ID: <bug-212825-13-FTmWHoxGdT@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-212825-13@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-212825-13@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D212825 --- Comment #8 from jau@iki.fi --- So, Richard, what were the problems you intended to fix? Your patch includes a few differences to what was already in my patch in the end of January. My patch has been working just fine on amd64, ppc, and ppc64. I have to admit that I have not tested on other platforms. After wen stopped responding completely at the end of January I simply lost interest. If I cannot commit on my own and people stop talking to me, there is very little I can do to make things better. If there is something which is needed on some systems on which I have not tested, I would like to know what are those details and the reasons why. What sort of problems are fixed by those changes, the platforms on which those changes are needed, and under which conditions the changes are needed? I would like to avoid adding any complexity unless some environment really needs something done differently. Because amd64, ppc, and ppc64 represent little endian and big endian hardwa= re, 32 and 64 bit systems, one using clang, the other two using old gcc, amd64 and ppc running 10.4-BETA1, ppc64 running 11.1, all in all very distinct platforms, I have had no reason to expect any obvious problems on any other platform. If there are such corner cases, it would obviously be nice to be able to handle them appropriately as well. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-212825-13-FTmWHoxGdT>