Bug 47102 - [MAINTAINER] Update security/gnutls to 0.6.0
Summary: [MAINTAINER] Update security/gnutls to 0.6.0
Status: Closed FIXED
Alias: None
Product: Ports & Packages
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Individual Port(s) (show other bugs)
Version: Latest
Hardware: Any Any
: Normal Affects Only Me
Assignee: freebsd-ports-bugs (Nobody)
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2003-01-15 13:40 UTC by Sergei Kolobov
Modified: 2003-01-18 21:14 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:


Attachments
gnutls-0.6.0.patch (2.49 KB, patch)
2003-01-15 13:40 UTC, Sergei Kolobov
no flags Details | Diff

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Sergei Kolobov 2003-01-15 13:40:01 UTC
- Update to 0.6.0
- Install example C programs
Comment 1 Peter Pentchev 2003-01-15 14:22:55 UTC
On Wed, Jan 15, 2003 at 01:33:21PM -0000, Sergei Kolobov wrote:
> 
> >Number:         47102
> >Category:       ports
> >Synopsis:       [MAINTAINER] Update security/gnutls to 0.6.0
> >Originator:     Sergei Kolobov
[snip]
> Index: Makefile
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /home/ncvs/ports/security/gnutls/Makefile,v
> retrieving revision 1.1
> diff -u -r1.1 Makefile
> --- Makefile	2003/01/07 14:02:30	1.1
> +++ Makefile	2003/01/15 13:32:11
[snip]
> @@ -20,13 +20,15 @@
>  
>  USE_LIBTOOL=	yes
>  INSTALLS_SHLIB=	yes
> -CONFIGURE_TARGET=
> +CONFIGURE_TARGET=	--build=${MACHINE_ARCH}-portbld-freebsd${OSREL}
>  CONFIGURE_ENV=	CPPFLAGS="-I${LOCALBASE}/include" \

Do you really need to have a CONFIGURE_TARGET assignment at all?  I think
that bsd.port.mk provides a default value, that is exactly the one you
use; is there a reason to override it?

G'luck,
Peter

-- 
Peter Pentchev	roam@ringlet.net	roam@FreeBSD.org
PGP key:	http://people.FreeBSD.org/~roam/roam.key.asc
Key fingerprint	FDBA FD79 C26F 3C51 C95E  DF9E ED18 B68D 1619 4553
The rest of this sentence is written in Thailand, on
Comment 2 Peter Pentchev 2003-01-15 14:33:22 UTC
On Wed, Jan 15, 2003 at 04:22:55PM +0200, Peter Pentchev wrote:
> > -CONFIGURE_TARGET=
> > +CONFIGURE_TARGET=	--build=${MACHINE_ARCH}-portbld-freebsd${OSREL}
> >  CONFIGURE_ENV=	CPPFLAGS="-I${LOCALBASE}/include" \
> 
> Do you really need to have a CONFIGURE_TARGET assignment at all?  I think
> that bsd.port.mk provides a default value, that is exactly the one you
> use; is there a reason to override it?

Oops.  Never mind.  Of course it is not the same.

G'luck,
Peter

-- 
Peter Pentchev	roam@ringlet.net	roam@FreeBSD.org
PGP key:	http://people.FreeBSD.org/~roam/roam.key.asc
Key fingerprint	FDBA FD79 C26F 3C51 C95E  DF9E ED18 B68D 1619 4553
Do you think anybody has ever had *precisely this thought* before?
Comment 3 Sergei Kolobov 2003-01-16 13:58:00 UTC
On 2003-01-15 at 16:33 +0200, Peter Pentchev wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 15, 2003 at 04:22:55PM +0200, Peter Pentchev wrote:
> > > -CONFIGURE_TARGET=
> > > +CONFIGURE_TARGET=	--build=${MACHINE_ARCH}-portbld-freebsd${OSREL}
> > >  CONFIGURE_ENV=	CPPFLAGS="-I${LOCALBASE}/include" \
> > 
> > Do you really need to have a CONFIGURE_TARGET assignment at all?  I think
> > that bsd.port.mk provides a default value, that is exactly the one you
> > use; is there a reason to override it?
> 
> Oops.  Never mind.  Of course it is not the same.

Just for the record - if I understand correctly, it is a "feature" of
configure scripts generated by autoconf-2.5x+. Without this
CONFIGURE_TARGET redefinition, configure will either produce an annoying
(but harmless) warning message, or prepend a prefix to all binaries
names (something like "i386-unknown-freebsd4.7").

Hopefully, bsd.port.mk will be updated soon to cope with this (and, 
I am sure, many other) autoconf-2.5x "features". AlanE, are you there?

Sergei
Comment 4 Tilman Keskinoz freebsd_committer freebsd_triage 2003-01-18 21:14:18 UTC
State Changed
From-To: open->closed

Committed, thanks