Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2006 16:10:02 -0500 From: Stephen Montgomery-Smith <stephen@math.missouri.edu> To: Sean McNeil <sean@mcneil.com> Cc: openoffice@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 2.0 fails to compile on amd64 Message-ID: <44E77E2A.2080808@math.missouri.edu> In-Reply-To: <1156021188.1452.11.camel@triton.mcneil.com> References: <1156012505.63467.0.camel@triton.mcneil.com> <44E77A34.3080606@math.missouri.edu> <1156021188.1452.11.camel@triton.mcneil.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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. Stephen
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?44E77E2A.2080808>