From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jan 18 21:26:05 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5200116A4CE for ; Sun, 18 Jan 2004 21:26:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.nsu.ru (mx.nsu.ru [212.192.164.5]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8589D43D39 for ; Sun, 18 Jan 2004 21:26:02 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from danfe@regency.nsu.ru) Received: from mail by mx.nsu.ru with drweb-scanned (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1AiS53-0008Nt-00; Mon, 19 Jan 2004 11:36:09 +0600 Received: from regency.nsu.ru ([193.124.210.26]) by mx.nsu.ru with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1AiS52-0008Mc-00; Mon, 19 Jan 2004 11:36:08 +0600 Received: from regency.nsu.ru (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by regency.nsu.ru (8.12.9p2/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i0J5QqDO052944; Mon, 19 Jan 2004 11:26:52 +0600 (NOVT) (envelope-from danfe@regency.nsu.ru) Received: (from danfe@localhost) by regency.nsu.ru (8.12.9p2/8.12.9/Submit) id i0J5QqwB052919; Mon, 19 Jan 2004 11:26:52 +0600 (NOVT) (envelope-from danfe) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 11:26:52 +0600 From: Alexey Dokuchaev To: David Raistrick Message-ID: <20040119052652.GA45134@regency.nsu.ru> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-Envelope-To: drais@atlasta.net, ports@freebsd.org cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: WMxmms, NOT broken..? X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 05:26:05 -0000 On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 11:48:28AM -0800, David Raistrick wrote: > > Folks, > > I noticed that WMxmms is marked as broken: > > BROKEN= "Does not link, will be removed after Feb 2" > > I had no problem (re)compliling this port in my 4.9-RELEASE machine (ports > from this morning), nor my 5.2-RC2 machine, ports from RC2 CD. > > The build from the 5.2 and 4.9 machines looked the same, but here is the > 5.2 build (it's small): i know. but try telling this to kris@ :) the thing is that the build breaks on bento, but no one who i know were able to reproduce it in any live environment (either -current or -stable). maybe were just not trying hard enough.. i'll probably take a closer look at this issue when i have more idle time cycles. if you resolve this issue, i'll be most grateful. :) ./danfe