2.0 fails to compile on amd64

[Stephen Montgomery-Smith]

Sean McNeil wrote:
> 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.

I think that the functionality you are talking about was broken because 
of very recent changes to FreeBSD 6.1, so I think it is not right to 
blame it on people following -CURRENT, rather your problem is that you 
are following -STABLE to closely.  I am guessing that your previous good 
make of OO took place quite a while ago (maybe a month or so).