Re: 10.0-CUR r226986 && ports (general)

Am 11/03/11 18:42, schrieb b. f.:
>>>> It turns out that the problem is more general! A lot of ./configure
>>>> scripts are detecting in 10-CUR that they can't or should not build
>>>> shared libs; the problem is that the OS is detected now as
>>>
>>> As a temporary workaround, add "WITH_FBSD10_FIX=1" to /etc/make.conf.
>>
>> ports/UPDATING and some of the mails in the archive of -current
>> recommend setting UNAME_r=9.0-CURRENT; is this the same or which method
>> is prefered?
> 
> 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.
> 
> b.

So I presume the WITH_FBSD10_FIX flag is set in /etc/make.conf, right?
Setting this and try building ports without the masquerading will help
those people involved in fixing more than the masquerading solution? If
so, I would like to do so. I compile/update quite often ports, simply to
keep my system fresh and for some testing purposes. At the moment I
switch very often between CLANG and the legacy gcc 4.2.2 of FBSD 10, so
it would not bother me much more as the inherited bothering due to the
problems discussed if I have to switch one time more or prepare a PR for
the problem.

On the other hand, as far as I know, there was only suggested using
UNAME_r. When do I have to use the OSVERSION?


Regards
Oliver