Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2006 17:14:42 -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: <44E78D52.6040305@math.missouri.edu> In-Reply-To: <1156022154.2020.4.camel@triton.mcneil.com> 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> <1156022154.2020.4.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 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. I think that the functionality you are talking about was broken because of very recent changes to FreeBSD 6.1, so I think it is not right to blame it on people following -CURRENT, rather your problem is that you are following -STABLE to closely. I am guessing that your previous good make of OO took place quite a while ago (maybe a month or so).
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?44E78D52.6040305>