[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Thread Index]
Re: [XaraXtreme-dev] FreeBSD port for XaraLX 0.3r712 created
- From: Vasil Dimov <vd@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 12:12:37 +0300
- Subject: Re: [XaraXtreme-dev] FreeBSD port for XaraLX 0.3r712 created
On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 09:26:24AM +0100, Alex Bligh wrote:
> >Committers: you may look at the files/ directory of the port
> >and commit most (if not all) of the patches to the main repository.
> >Most of them are not FreeBSD specific.
> I had a look for the patches and they all seem to be patches to wx (unless
> I'm missing something). This is a bit peculiar because I thought FreeBSD
> was a wx supported platform. Can you confirm that these are all wx
> problems? (i.e. no patches required to XaraLX). If so, I suggest you report
> to their bug-tracker at sourceforge (and submit the patch at sourceforge
> too). It's a bit concerning wx does not seem to build out the box for
Hmmz, did you look in the files/ directory in xaralx.shar?
changes hardcoded make with $(MAKE) since FreeBSD's make is
different from gnu's make (e.g. gmake should be used). If the MAKE
variable is initialized in the linux envoronments this patch will not
hurt anyone if committed to the repository
-if test $ac_compiler_gnu == "yes"; then
+if test $ac_compiler_gnu = "yes"; then
I am not autotools guru, but the other diffs where necessary because
there were some errors without them being applied
converts file existence check to sh/bash conformity, the previous
syntax was bash specific. This does not really matter under Linux
since in most linux distros /bin/sh is a symlink to /bin/bash
* patch-wxOil_compatdef.h, patch-wxOil_errors.cpp, patch-wxOil_errors.h
just a forking of the code based on the __FreeBSD__ macro
> Re the version number incrementing, currently the build server builds
> every 3-6 hours, and just pulls off the latest revision. So the revision
> number incrementing just means someone is doing some work :-) I'm not
> sure whether or not the old versions are kept. I feel we should at
> least keep the old stable versions. Note you can always get any particular
> revision from svn (obviously).
It will be a problem if the old versions get deleted since they are
referenced in the port's files and the port will render unusable if they
disappear from the download site. I think at least Gentoo will suffer
from the same problem.
Testing can show the presence of bugs, but not their absence.
-- Edsger W. Dijkstra