Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 11:16:38 -0500 From: Michael Scheidell <michael.scheidell@secnap.com> To: <ports@freebsd.org> Subject: not for arch? use arch? don't care arch? Message-ID: <4F296566.805@secnap.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
what is todays favorite way of doing this:
(i sent this question to submitter):
> I had a question, and just for the logs:
>
> you removed this in the Makefile, but in your fix log, you didn't
> mention that you got it to compile on sparc64.
>
> -.if ${ARCH} == "sparc64"
> -BROKEN= Does not compile on sparc64
> -.endif
> -
>
> did you mean to remove that test or does it compile on sparc64?
<http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/164373>;
his reply is this:
"The ChangeLog mentioned some sparc64 fixes, so it's worth giving it a
try again, but the port depends on boost-libs now which is marked as
broken on sparc64, so it cannot actually be tested."
So, how do you want me to handle this?
NOT_FOR_ARCHS sparc64?
or just let PH die trying to include boost-libs?
--
Michael Scheidell, CTO
o: 561-999-5000
d: 561-948-2259
>*| *SECNAP Network Security Corporation
* Best Mobile Solutions Product of 2011
* Best Intrusion Prevention Product
* Hot Company Finalist 2011
* Best Email Security Product
* Certified SNORT Integrator
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned and certified safe by SpammerTrap(r).
For Information please see http://www.spammertrap.com/
______________________________________________________________________
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4F296566.805>