Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 22:17:19 -0500 From: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> To: Jean-Yves Lefort <jylefort@FreeBSD.org> Cc: ports@freebsd.org, Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net>, ru@freebsd.org, mezz@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Flaw in print/acroread7 (was: Re: [ru@FreeBSD.org: [patch] mixed i386/amd64 ports semi-broken]) Message-ID: <20060130031719.GA22430@xor.obsecurity.org> In-Reply-To: <20060130040847.2ee8891f.jylefort@FreeBSD.org> References: <20060129185239.GC83362@ip.net.ua> <20060129221019.1c0a5d10@Magellan.Leidinger.net> <20060130040847.2ee8891f.jylefort@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--+HP7ph2BbKc20aGI
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 04:08:47AM +0100, Jean-Yves Lefort wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 22:10:19 +0100
> Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> wrote:
>=20
> > On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 20:52:40 +0200
> > Ruslan Ermilov <ru@freebsd.org> wrote:
> >=20
> > > I hit this problem attempting to install print/acroread7 on amd64.
> > > It depends on emulators/linux_base-8, which rewrites ${ARCH} from
> > > "amd64" to "i386". Unfortunately, when linux_base-8 is processed
> > > in a submake, e.g., when I run "make fetch-recursive" in
> > > print/acroread7, no rewrite of ${ARCH} actually happens because
> > > bsd.port.mk mistakenly thinks that ${ARCH} can never change, so
> > > it's getting passed ARCH already set to "amd64", and as a highest
> > > priority command-line type make(1) variable. This results in
> > > ${MD5_FILE} improperly set to distinfo.amd64 which doesn't exist.
> > > Here's a fix:
> > >=20
> > > %%%
> > > Index: bsd.port.mk
> >=20
> > For this particular problem: acroread7 should set ARCH like every other
> > linux port does (better: every other tested linux port should do) to
> > i386. But there are more flaws in Trevor's ports and I decided to let
> > other people "handle" it (e.g. mezz has some patches for acroread7
> > which would let the port behave more to the rules of the porters
> > handbook).
>=20
> Any reason to not consider (cluster test) Ruslan's solution?
Before I put it on the cluster I'd want reasonable evidence that the
patch isn't going to break more ports than it fixes (which seems
likely to me).
Kris
--+HP7ph2BbKc20aGI
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (FreeBSD)
iD8DBQFD3YU/Wry0BWjoQKURAuYbAKCVaq5xY/18hnY/ltFa6IDSXGl1FwCg66pV
MR7dHZt13DSKg25g3UKwHv8=
=HzY+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--+HP7ph2BbKc20aGI--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060130031719.GA22430>