2.0 fails to compile on amd64

[Sean McNeil]

On Sat, 2006-08-19 at 17:14 -0500, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
> 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).

Yep, you are right. I jumped too quick to a conclusion.  It is because
-STABLE added prototypes for re-entrant versions about a month ago.