DosBox upgrade failed.

2010-05-30 Thread David Marec
Hi all, I got the following issue, upgrading Dosbox to the 0.74 release: === Making all in core_dynrec g++44 -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I../.. -I../../include -I/usr/local/include - I/usr/local/include/SDL -I/usr/local/include -D_GNU_SOURCE=1 -D_REENTRANT -O2 -pipe -march=native -fno-strict-alias

Re: DosBox upgrade failed.

2010-05-30 Thread Alex Kozlov
On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 10:58:42AM +0200, David Marec wrote: > I got the following issue, upgrading Dosbox to the 0.74 release: > > === > Making all in core_dynrec > g++44 -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I../.. -I../../include -I/usr/local/include - > I/usr/local/include/SDL -I/usr/local/include -D_GNU_SOU

Re: DosBox upgrade failed.

2010-05-30 Thread David Marec
Le dimanche 30 mai 2010 12:21:13, Alex Kozlov a écrit : > On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 10:58:42AM +0200, David Marec wrote: > > I got the following issue, upgrading Dosbox to the 0.74 release: > > > > === > > Making all in core_dynrec > > g++44 -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I../.. -I../../include -I/usr/local

Re: GSoC: Making ports work with clang

2010-05-30 Thread Andrius Morkūnas
On Sun, 30 May 2010 14:58:05 +0300, Volodymyr Kostyrko wrote: 1. __dso not found after link. Some symbols seems to be omitted from libraries and linking of plugins fails badly. Known problem with known fix. 2. Assembler errors. Xorg has some in x11-servers/xorg-server x11-drivers/xf86-video-

Re: GSoC: Making ports work with clang

2010-05-30 Thread Erik Cederstrand
Den 30/05/2010 kl. 14.51 skrev Andrius Morkūnas: > On Sun, 30 May 2010 14:58:05 +0300, Volodymyr Kostyrko > wrote: >> 1. __dso not found after link. Some symbols seems to be omitted from >> libraries and linking of plugins fails badly. > Known problem with known fix. > >> 2. Assembler errors.

Ports on Clang

2010-05-30 Thread Chris Rees
Dear All, I'm following the Clang discussions with interest; is there a 'proper' way to test and mark a port as Clang compatible? I'd love to do that with my ports at least... Thanks, Chris ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebs

Re: GSoC: Making ports work with clang

2010-05-30 Thread Andrius Morkūnas
On Sun, 30 May 2010 16:36:45 +0300, Erik Cederstrand wrote: Andrius, would it make sense to create e.g. a wiki page tracking the status and current known problems with compiling ports with clang? Just like there's a wiki page ClangBSD status. http://wiki.freebsd.org/PortsAndClang It doesn't

Re: Ports on Clang [SOLVED]

2010-05-30 Thread Chris Rees
On 30 May 2010 14:36, Chris Rees wrote: > Dear All, > > I'm following the Clang discussions with interest; is there a 'proper' > way to test and mark a port as Clang compatible? I'd love to do that > with my ports at least... > > Thanks, > > Chris > >From an IRC discussion minutes after this emai

Re: RFT: netatalk-2.1

2010-05-30 Thread Stefan Bethke
Am 28.05.2010 um 08:27 schrieb Stefan Bethke: > Am 22.05.2010 um 19:08 schrieb Stefan Bethke: > >> Hi, >> >> I'm working on updating the net/netatalk port from 2.0.5 to 2.1. You can >> find the most current version of my work at >> http://www.lassitu.de/freebsd/netatalk/ >> >> Initial testin

ports licenses

2010-05-30 Thread Rene Ladan
Hi, While adding license information to my ports (to be committed), I stumbled upon the following: * devel/argouml uses Eclipse Public License (EPL) 1.0, but this one is not in bsd.licenses.db.mk * lang/bas2tap uses some homebrew license, but it has no formal name, so LICENSE_NAME cannot be forma

Re: ports licenses

2010-05-30 Thread Eitan Adler
On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 11:20 PM, Rene Ladan wrote: ... > * lang/bas2tap uses some homebrew license, but it has no formal name, so > LICENSE_NAME cannot be formally set. > > I think the first one can be added to bsd.license.db.mk, but I'm not > sure what to do about the second one. from bsd.licen

Re: ports licenses

2010-05-30 Thread Charlie Kester
On Sun 30 May 2010 at 13:20:55 PDT Rene Ladan wrote: Hi, While adding license information to my ports (to be committed), I stumbled upon the following: Is this something all maintainers should be doing? Yesterday, while upgrading my installed ports, I noticed a message in the output about

Re: ports licenses

2010-05-30 Thread Wesley Shields
On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 02:29:45PM -0700, Charlie Kester wrote: > On Sun 30 May 2010 at 13:20:55 PDT Rene Ladan wrote: > >Hi, > > > >While adding license information to my ports (to be committed), I > >stumbled upon the following: > > Is this something all maintainers should be doing? > > Yeste

Re: ports licenses

2010-05-30 Thread Charlie Kester
On Sun 30 May 2010 at 14:40:38 PDT Wesley Shields wrote: I'd also say that if you have a regular update planned for a port that you submit the license information with that. Yeah, phasing it in along with other work makes sense. /visions of 20,000+ new PR's doing nothing but adding LICENSE in

Issue with recent license infrastructure.

2010-05-30 Thread Ashish SHUKLA
Hi, I noticed there is an issue with the license infrastructure recently introduced in the ports tree. If the LICENSE_FILE (in port Makefile) points to a file named LICENSE, then package generation fails, and also correct license file fails to copy. As a workaround, I've to copy LICENSE file to a