10-CURRENT && ports/security/p11-kit

Matthias Apitz guru at unixarea.de
Fri Nov 4 19:35:42 UTC 2011

El día Friday, November 04, 2011 a las 08:19:12PM +0100, Armin Pirkovitsch escribió:

> > ports/security/p11-kit (requested by ports/graphics/evince via gnome)
> > does not build:
> >
> Just wondering - have you looked at UPDATING? - especially:
> 20110928:
>    AFFECTS: users of 10-current
>    AUTHOR: eadler at FreeBSD.org
>    There are known issues installing ports on FreeBSD 10+ due to
>    bogus assumptions by various build scripts. This will not be fixed
>    until 9-RELEASE is released.
> ...

I have read this and I have in /etc/make.conf the following lines:

# From: "b. f." <bf1783 at googlemail.com>
# To: freebsd-ports at freebsd.org, freebsd-current at freebsd.org
# Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2011 13:42:50 -0400
# No, it is not the same.  You can either masquerade, by setting UNAME_r
# and OSVERSION, or by editing the headers and scripts that define them;
# or you can use WITH_FBSD10_FIX for ports that define HAS_CONFIGURE
# (which is implied by USE_AUTOTOOLS and GNU_CONFIGURE).  Right now the
# masquerading is probably safer, because there are some problems with
# the fix that are still being resolved -- and a few ports that may fail
# despite the fix.  But of course if you help to test without
# masquerading, these problems will be resolved sooner.

and most of the ports I'm using are compiling now; the port mentioned
here does not (not even with UNAME_r) and I wanted to bring this to the
attention of the maintainer and others;



Matthias Apitz
e <guru at unixarea.de> - w http://www.unixarea.de/
UNIX since V7 on PDP-11, UNIX on mainframe since ESER 1055 (IBM /370)
UNIX on x86 since SVR4.2 UnixWare 2.1.2, FreeBSD since 2.2.5

More information about the freebsd-current mailing list