grub-0.92 port is broken on 5-CURRENT. Attached patches below fix the build. I don't have reiserfs so someone should test it but I believe the patch to it is simple. Fix: ### Apply this patch to the port Makefile: .include <bsd.port.pre.mk> -.if ${OSVERSION} >= 500113 -BROKEN= "Does not compile on FreeBSD ${OSVERSION}" -.endif - pre-build: - @${RM} ${WRKSRC}/docs/grub.info* + @${RM} -f ${WRKSRC}/docs/grub.info post-install: @${CAT} ${PKGMESSAGE} ### Add this patch as grub-0.92/files/patch-stage2_fsys_reiserfs.c: /* magic string to find desc blocks in the journal */--bucuuggGENuC0k9YylgRHJKlfWiKHSHWpEobETmsIhimkn07 Content-Type: text/plain; name="file.diff" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="file.diff" --- Makefile.orig Mon Dec 22 22:12:18 2003 +++ Makefile Tue Jan 6 11:13:07 2004 @@ -37,12 +37,8 @@
Le Mar 6 jan 04 à 20:24:29 +0100, Nate Lawson <nate@root.org> écrivait : > > >Number: 60988 > >Category: ports > >Synopsis: PATCH: fix build of grub-0.92 > >Confidential: no > >Severity: serious > >Priority: medium > >Responsible: freebsd-ports-bugs > >State: open > >Quarter: > >Keywords: > >Date-Required: > >Class: sw-bug > >Submitter-Id: current-users > >Arrival-Date: Tue Jan 06 11:30:15 PST 2004 > >Closed-Date: > >Last-Modified: > >Originator: Nate Lawson > >Release: FreeBSD 5.2-CURRENT i386 > >Organization: > FreeBSD > >Environment: > System: > > >Description: > grub-0.92 port is broken on 5-CURRENT. Attached patches below > fix the build. I don't have reiserfs so someone should test it > but I believe the patch to it is simple. Note that 0.92 is outdated, 0.93 has been released on 08.12.2002. Meanwhile, I think that it should remain marked "broken", because AFAIK it does not support UFS2. Regards, -- Th. Thomas.
On Tue, 6 Jan 2004, Thierry Thomas wrote: > Le Mar 6 jan 04 =E0 20:24:29 +0100, Nate Lawson <nate@root.org> > =E9crivait=A0: > > > > >Number: 60988 > > >Category: ports > > >Synopsis: PATCH: fix build of grub-0.92 > > >Confidential: no > > >Severity: serious > > >Priority: medium > > >Responsible: freebsd-ports-bugs > > >State: open > > >Quarter: > > >Keywords: > > >Date-Required: > > >Class: sw-bug > > >Submitter-Id: current-users > > >Arrival-Date: Tue Jan 06 11:30:15 PST 2004 > > >Closed-Date: > > >Last-Modified: > > >Originator: Nate Lawson > > >Release: FreeBSD 5.2-CURRENT i386 > > >Organization: > > FreeBSD > > >Environment: > > System: > > > > >Description: > > =09grub-0.92 port is broken on 5-CURRENT. Attached patches below > > =09fix the build. I don't have reiserfs so someone should test it > > =09but I believe the patch to it is simple. > > Note that 0.92 is outdated, 0.93 has been released on 08.12.2002. I know. First things first. Feel free to submit patches for building 0.93. > Meanwhile, I think that it should remain marked "broken", because AFAIK > it does not support UFS2. There are plenty of us using UFS1 and 5-CURRENT since we don't need the ACLs feature and the root (or /boot) partition is small enough that there is no benefit from the larger tables. Again, the first thing is to get the existing grub-0.92 compiling again, then grub-0.93, then UFS2, ... -Nate
Le Mar 6 jan 04 à 22:28:13 +0100, Nate Lawson <nate@root.org> écrivait : > There are plenty of us using UFS1 and 5-CURRENT since we don't need the > ACLs feature and the root (or /boot) partition is small enough that there > is no benefit from the larger tables. OK, but since UFS2 is the default for a new install, we should at least echo a warning. > Again, the first thing is to get the existing grub-0.92 compiling again, > then grub-0.93, then UFS2, ... Fine. -- Th. Thomas.
State Changed From-To: open->closed Committed, thanks!
On Tue, 6 Jan 2004, Thierry Thomas wrote: > Le Mar 6 jan 04 =E0 22:28:13 +0100, Nate Lawson <nate@root.org> > =E9crivait=A0: > > There are plenty of us using UFS1 and 5-CURRENT since we don't need the > > ACLs feature and the root (or /boot) partition is small enough that the= re > > is no benefit from the larger tables. > > OK, but since UFS2 is the default for a new install, we should at least > echo a warning. Feel free to add that to the port Makefile. I'm not a ports guy so I don't know how to do this. -Nate