From owner-cvs-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jun 13 19:34:30 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cvs-ports@freebsd.org Delivered-To: cvs-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2736616A474; Wed, 13 Jun 2007 19:34:30 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kris@obsecurity.org) Received: from elvis.mu.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1028913C4C9; Wed, 13 Jun 2007 19:34:30 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kris@obsecurity.org) Received: from obsecurity.dyndns.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196]) by elvis.mu.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CD431A4D80; Wed, 13 Jun 2007 12:34:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rot13.obsecurity.org (rot13.obsecurity.org [192.168.1.5]) by obsecurity.dyndns.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C0BA5119F; Wed, 13 Jun 2007 15:34:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: by rot13.obsecurity.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 78A79BE89; Wed, 13 Jun 2007 15:34:28 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 15:34:28 -0400 From: Kris Kennaway To: infofarmer@FreeBSD.org Message-ID: <20070613193428.GA55359@rot13.obsecurity.org> References: <200706131105.l5DB5lhw037795@repoman.freebsd.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i Cc: cvs-ports@freebsd.org, Hajimu UMEMOTO , cvs-all@freebsd.org, ports-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/security/cyrus-sasl2 Makefile X-BeenThere: cvs-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the ports tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 19:34:30 -0000 On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 11:30:41PM +0400, Andrew Pantyukhin wrote: > On 6/13/07, Andrew Pantyukhin wrote: > >On 6/13/07, Hajimu UMEMOTO wrote: > >> Still, I cannot understand why this issue was not raised in the past, > >> and why amd64 suddenly became to require -fPIC. > > > >Yeah, pointyhat didn't really show any problems. > >It's probably some autotools (configure) quirk. > >BTW, setting CFLAGS=-fPIC causes a strange error. > > On 6/13/07, Kris Kennaway wrote: > >Perhaps because it's an incorrect change? > > Yeah, this doesn't look nice. This morning I tested > it twice (with recursive clean in between) and both > times it failed suggesting -fPIC. Now I comment out > my fix and it compiles ok. Well I was referring to a different flavour of incorrectness, namely adding -fPIC to all files compiled by the port. Kris