On 2025/01/28 00:23, Theo Buehler wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2025 at 11:19:18PM +, Kurt Miller wrote:
> > On Jan 27, 2025, at 6:06 PM, Theo Buehler wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jan 27, 2025 at 11:00:03PM +, Kurt Miller wrote:
> > >> On Jan 27, 2025, at 4:50 PM, Kurt Mosiejczuk wrote:
> > >>>
On Jan 27, 2025, at 6:23 PM, Theo Buehler wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2025 at 11:19:18PM +, Kurt Miller wrote:
>> On Jan 27, 2025, at 6:06 PM, Theo Buehler wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2025 at 11:00:03PM +, Kurt Miller wrote:
On Jan 27, 2025, at 4:50 PM, Kurt Mosiejczuk wrote:
>>
On Mon, Jan 27, 2025 at 11:19:18PM +, Kurt Miller wrote:
> niobe$ grep -l "Error: change in plist" *.log | wc -l
> 35
> Ugh this is a class of ports I didn’t focus on… those that use
> COMPILER = base-clang ports-gcc
> for a c only port. While there are only 35 ports in this list, as yo
On Mon, Jan 27, 2025 at 11:19:18PM +, Kurt Miller wrote:
> On Jan 27, 2025, at 6:06 PM, Theo Buehler wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 27, 2025 at 11:00:03PM +, Kurt Miller wrote:
> >> On Jan 27, 2025, at 4:50 PM, Kurt Mosiejczuk wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Jan 23, 2025 at 03:16:57PM +, Kur
On Jan 27, 2025, at 6:06 PM, Theo Buehler wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2025 at 11:00:03PM +, Kurt Miller wrote:
>> On Jan 27, 2025, at 4:50 PM, Kurt Mosiejczuk wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 23, 2025 at 03:16:57PM +, Kurt Miller wrote:
On Jan 23, 2025, at 3:49 AM, Theo Buehler wrote:
>>
On Mon, Jan 27, 2025 at 11:00:03PM +, Kurt Miller wrote:
> On Jan 27, 2025, at 4:50 PM, Kurt Mosiejczuk wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 23, 2025 at 03:16:57PM +, Kurt Miller wrote:
> >> On Jan 23, 2025, at 3:49 AM, Theo Buehler wrote:
> >
> Thoughts? If looks good, testing with a bulk b
On Jan 27, 2025, at 4:50 PM, Kurt Mosiejczuk wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2025 at 03:16:57PM +, Kurt Miller wrote:
>> On Jan 23, 2025, at 3:49 AM, Theo Buehler wrote:
>
Thoughts? If looks good, testing with a bulk build on amd64 and sparc64
would be
helpful to ensure I didn't
On Thu, Jan 23, 2025 at 03:16:57PM +, Kurt Miller wrote:
> On Jan 23, 2025, at 3:49 AM, Theo Buehler wrote:
> >> Thoughts? If looks good, testing with a bulk build on amd64 and sparc64
> >> would be
> >> helpful to ensure I didn't miss a port that needs a REVISION bump.
> > This went throug
On Jan 23, 2025, at 3:49 AM, Theo Buehler wrote:
>
>> Thoughts? If looks good, testing with a bulk build on amd64 and sparc64
>> would be
>> helpful to ensure I didn't miss a port that needs a REVISION bump.
>
> This went through an amd64 bulk with no fallout. I think you should land
> this and
> Thoughts? If looks good, testing with a bulk build on amd64 and sparc64 would
> be
> helpful to ensure I didn't miss a port that needs a REVISION bump.
This went through an amd64 bulk with no fallout. I think you should land
this and if there's sparc64 fallout, we can deal with it in tree.
> >
> > Thoughts? If looks good, testing with a bulk build on amd64 and sparc64
> > would be
> > helpful to ensure I didn't miss a port that needs a REVISION bump.
>
> Yes, I think this is the correct way to fix it. Thank you. It works in
> the test cases I tried and I failed to find any fault
On Mon, 13 Jan 2025 21:25:09 +, k...@intricatesoftware.com wrote:
> I've been taking a close look at c++ ports on sparc64. I've submitted some low
> hanging fruit fixes that have been committed. However, there is a class of
> ports
> that it's not possible to fix without changing clang.port.mk
I've been taking a close look at c++ ports on sparc64. I've submitted some low
hanging fruit fixes that have been committed. However, there is a class of ports
that it's not possible to fix without changing clang.port.mk and bsd.port.mk.
Some background first.
A c++ port that uses the base compile
13 matches
Mail list logo
