Page MenuHomeFreeBSD

emulators/i386-wine-devel: Update to 5.5
ClosedPublic

Authored by salvadore on Apr 6 2020, 10:12 PM.
Tags
None
Referenced Files
Unknown Object (File)
Thu, Jun 27, 1:19 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Jun 9 2024, 4:41 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Jun 6 2024, 12:13 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Jun 6 2024, 12:13 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Jun 6 2024, 12:09 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Jun 4 2024, 8:21 PM
Unknown Object (File)
May 29 2024, 8:24 PM
Unknown Object (File)
May 7 2024, 11:12 AM
Subscribers

Details

Summary

The update also fixes bug #244547.

PR: 244547

Diff Detail

Repository
rP FreeBSD ports repository
Lint
No Lint Coverage
Unit
No Test Coverage
Build Status
Buildable 30332
Build 28100: arc lint + arc unit

Event Timeline

I avoid putting a changelog in the commit message because it would contain lots of things: i386-wine-devel has not been update for a while...

Looks good, thank you.

And agreed not to have an extensive commit message with all the changes from Wine 4.0 to 5.5;
those would be a lot and you'd either have to go through all the updates I've done for wine-devel
more or less every other week and/or copy the extensive one I did went emulators/wine went 5.0.

One comment, since I struggled with this when you first showed me the full patch and now again:
I think the condition around the IGNORE close would be easier to understand if it read

! ( (...condition for 11.x) || (...condition for 12.x) || ... )

instead of the current expression. A suggestion, not a must.

This revision is now accepted and ready to land.Apr 6 2020, 11:45 PM

One comment, since I struggled with this when you first showed me the full patch and now again:
I think the condition around the IGNORE close would be easier to understand if it read

! ( (...condition for 11.x) || (...condition for 12.x) || ... )

instead of the current expression. A suggestion, not a must.

For the moment I prefer to keep it as it is. I want to try to remove the need for prebuilt packages for the i386 wine ports: having updated i386-wine-devel once, I did not see why a full i386 jail is needed to build the port. I wonder if adding CFLAGS+= -m32 wouldn't be enough (maybe with a few more fixes). If this experiment succeeded, then the whole line containing those conditions would disappear; if not, I would change it in the way it appears clearer to you.

This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.