On Sat, 10 Aug 2013 14:59:22 +0200 "O. Hartmann" <ohartman_at_zedat.fu-berlin.de> wrote: > On Sat, 10 Aug 2013 11:31:19 +0200 > Gary Jennejohn <gljennjohn_at_googlemail.com> wrote: > > > On Sat, 10 Aug 2013 11:10:40 +0200 > > Rainer Hurling <rhurlin_at_gwdg.de> wrote: > > > > > Yes, I can confirm, that it builds, installs and runs fine for me. > > > > > > The patch should be placed as > > > x11/nvidia-driver/files/patch-src__nvidia_subr.c, shoudn't it? > > > > > > Many thanks for this work. > > > > > > > Thanks for testing. > > > > Yes, putting the patch into files/ with that name works also and > > is much simpler than the steps I outlined. > > > > > Placing the patch in files as recommended here doesn't play well with > the obvious intention of the REINPLACE command: > > the patch only applies to 319.25. > > I use the cutting edge 325.15. The patch doesn't apply since some lines > shifted - here comes the tricky REINPLACE part of the Makefile in place. > > I simply adapted your patches discussed and introduced here and > "adapted" the REINPLACE statements/pattern around line 160 in the > toplevel Makefile of port x11/nvidia-driver. > > Find the patch attached - I forgot to raise PORTREVISION=1. > > I'm now sending this email from the prior crashing box with the patch > discussed applied via the Makefile to 325.15. > > Thanks a lot for the fast help. > Yes, this is a better approach. I made my patch before realizing that the REINPLACE_CMD was the source of the errors. Any real advantage to using 325.15? You should submit a PR with this patch. -- Gary JennejohnReceived on Sat Aug 10 2013 - 11:39:55 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:40 UTC