2.0 fails to compile on amd64

[Sean McNeil]

On Sat, 2006-08-19 at 16:10 -0500, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
> Sean McNeil wrote:
> > On Sat, 2006-08-19 at 15:53 -0500, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
> > 
> >>Sean McNeil wrote:
> >>
> >>>I get the following error:
> >>>
> >>>In file included from conditn.c:37:
> >>>system.h:542: error: conflicting types for 'gethostbyname_r'
> >>>/usr/include/netdb.h:228: error: previous declaration of
> >>>'gethostbyname_r' was here
> >>>dmake:  Error code 1, while making '../../unxfbsdx.pro/obj/conditn.obj'
> >>>'---* tg_merge.mk *---'
> >>>
> >>>ERROR: Error 65280 occurred while
> >>>making /usr/ports/editors/openoffice.org-2.0/work/OOD680_m1/sal/osl/unx
> >>>dmake:  Error code 1, while making 'build_instsetoo_native'
> >>>'---* *---'
> >>>*** Error code 255
> >>
> >>The problem you have (which by the way will only occur with a very 
> >>recent version of FreeBSD 6.1) was fixed in Openoffice 2.0.3, but when 
> >>2.0.4.m1 was ported (probably yesterday or today) the porter forgot to 
> >>carry across the fix.  My plan is to wait until the porter realizes this 
> >>and fixes it.  The problem is unrelated to amd64.
> > 
> > 
> > OK, thanks.  The fix would appear to be fairly obvious in that includes
> > of netdb.h should not be done in system.h when the replacement
> > gethostbyname_r is used.  I see that there is a direct include and it is
> > included again when NETBSD or SCO is defined.  Seems to me the first
> > instance should just be removed.
> > 
> > 2.0.4.m1.. is that a development release?  Shouldn't it have been update
> > only for -devel?
> 
> Well the 2.0.3 did have these particular problems fixed (and if you want 
> to fix it yourself you should really try to look at the openoffice port 
> of a few days ago, because there are similar problems with other *_r 
> functions), but it had some other problem which ended with a kind of 
> "spinlock" error.  My impression is that this was a very difficult 
> problem to figure out, and so my guess is that the porter jumped at the 
> chance when a later version came out, in hope of fixing this.
> 
> My impression is that OO is a really hard port to maintain.  When it 
> works, it works really well, and I do a "make package" as well as "make 
> install" so that it is easy for me to reinstall at a later date when the 
> OO port is going through a season of not working.  If you are in need of 
> a working OO right now try to get a package from somewhere.  I could 
> even give you mine if you like.

Thanks for the offer, but I already have OO installed.  I installed it
previous to the recent update by maho in cvs just 8 hours ago.
portupgrade is what brought the issue to my attention.  The version I
have installed is working without problems.

It is a shame that people update ports to fix issues with -CURRENT and
break functionality for everyone else that tracks the stable builds.