Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 22:45:12 +0200 From: Rene Ladan <r.c.ladan@gmail.com> To: ports@freebsd.org, List for discussing optimization of BOINC apps <boinc_opt@ssl.berkeley.edu> Subject: setiathome-enhanced 5.27 : configure step unreliable? Message-ID: <46D5DAD8.3090108@gmail.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi, I've updated the FreeBSD port of setiathome-enhanced to 5.27 and it also has been committed to the ports tree. However there seems to be a problem with the generated configure, it does not properly detect xmmintrin.h on some systems even when present (it is located in /usr/include). The strange thing is that the file _does_ get detected on my box: FreeBSD 7.0-CURRENT i386, 2007-08-20 The resulting application even produces valid results :) : http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/results.php?userid=211311 (look for computer 2960826, the other one is a Windows XP box at work) Some failure reports from users are at: http://head.miwibox.org/tb/index.php?action=describe_port&id=1806 http://amd64.miwibox.org/tb/index.php?action=describe_port%26id=1245 and http://home.tiscali.nl/rladan/freebsd/sah/config_make.log.gz (uploaded, sent per private email) When originally designing the port, I've chosen to slightly modify the build infrastructure to: * match the FreeBSD BOINC port, * remove some unnecessary/unuseable stuff (server, graphics) * take some FreeBSD-only shortcuts, * remove some polluting -mCPU_SPECIFIC compiler options, they are set in the port Makefile instead to keep the source more CPU-independent. I've not changed anything else. The recipe to create the FreeBSD source tarball from the setiathome_enhanced-client-cvs-2007-08-08.tar.gz tarball is at: http://home.tiscali.nl/rladan/freebsd/sah/seti-recipe.sh http://home.tiscali.nl/rladan/freebsd/sah/patches.diff (referenced by the .sh file) The recipe recreates the configure and Makefile.in files, I've used the following tools for this as installed by the devel/autotools port: * aclocal 1.10 * autoheader 2.61 * autoconf 2.61 * automake 1.10 Can someone shed a light on it? I don't see anything obviously wrong myself. Regards, Rene -- GPG fingerprint = E738 5471 D185 7013 0EE0 4FC8 3C1D 6F83 12E1 84F6 (subkeys.pgp.net) "It won't fit on the line." -- me, 2001
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?46D5DAD8.3090108>