Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2006 14:15:54 -0700 From: Sean McNeil <sean@mcneil.com> To: Stephen Montgomery-Smith <stephen@math.missouri.edu> Cc: openoffice@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 2.0 fails to compile on amd64 Message-ID: <1156022154.2020.4.camel@triton.mcneil.com> In-Reply-To: <44E77E2A.2080808@math.missouri.edu> References: <1156012505.63467.0.camel@triton.mcneil.com> <44E77A34.3080606@math.missouri.edu> <1156021188.1452.11.camel@triton.mcneil.com> <44E77E2A.2080808@math.missouri.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 2006-08-19 at 16:10 -0500, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote: > Sean McNeil wrote: > > On Sat, 2006-08-19 at 15:53 -0500, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote: > > > >>Sean McNeil wrote: > >> > >>>I get the following error: > >>> > >>>In file included from conditn.c:37: > >>>system.h:542: error: conflicting types for 'gethostbyname_r' > >>>/usr/include/netdb.h:228: error: previous declaration of > >>>'gethostbyname_r' was here > >>>dmake: Error code 1, while making '../../unxfbsdx.pro/obj/conditn.obj' > >>>'---* tg_merge.mk *---' > >>> > >>>ERROR: Error 65280 occurred while > >>>making /usr/ports/editors/openoffice.org-2.0/work/OOD680_m1/sal/osl/unx > >>>dmake: Error code 1, while making 'build_instsetoo_native' > >>>'---* *---' > >>>*** Error code 255 > >> > >>The problem you have (which by the way will only occur with a very > >>recent version of FreeBSD 6.1) was fixed in Openoffice 2.0.3, but when > >>2.0.4.m1 was ported (probably yesterday or today) the porter forgot to > >>carry across the fix. My plan is to wait until the porter realizes this > >>and fixes it. The problem is unrelated to amd64. > > > > > > OK, thanks. The fix would appear to be fairly obvious in that includes > > of netdb.h should not be done in system.h when the replacement > > gethostbyname_r is used. I see that there is a direct include and it is > > included again when NETBSD or SCO is defined. Seems to me the first > > instance should just be removed. > > > > 2.0.4.m1.. is that a development release? Shouldn't it have been update > > only for -devel? > > Well the 2.0.3 did have these particular problems fixed (and if you want > to fix it yourself you should really try to look at the openoffice port > of a few days ago, because there are similar problems with other *_r > functions), but it had some other problem which ended with a kind of > "spinlock" error. My impression is that this was a very difficult > problem to figure out, and so my guess is that the porter jumped at the > chance when a later version came out, in hope of fixing this. > > My impression is that OO is a really hard port to maintain. When it > works, it works really well, and I do a "make package" as well as "make > install" so that it is easy for me to reinstall at a later date when the > OO port is going through a season of not working. If you are in need of > a working OO right now try to get a package from somewhere. I could > even give you mine if you like. Thanks for the offer, but I already have OO installed. I installed it previous to the recent update by maho in cvs just 8 hours ago. portupgrade is what brought the issue to my attention. The version I have installed is working without problems. It is a shame that people update ports to fix issues with -CURRENT and break functionality for everyone else that tracks the stable builds.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1156022154.2020.4.camel>