Re: pkg/43811 (pkgsrc-2010Q2 - emulators/vice build (wrong patch))

[Matthew Mondor <mm_lists%pulsar-zone.net@localhost>]

The following reply was made to PR pkg/43811; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Matthew Mondor <mm_lists%pulsar-zone.net@localhost>
To: gnats-bugs%NetBSD.org@localhost
Cc: tech-x11%NetBSD.org@localhost
Subject: Re: pkg/43811 (pkgsrc-2010Q2 - emulators/vice build (wrong patch))
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2010 00:43:56 -0400

 On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 00:50:04 +0000 (UTC)
 Matthew Mondor <mm_lists%pulsar-zone.net@localhost> wrote:
 
 > The following reply was made to PR pkg/43811; it has been noted by GNATS.
 > 
 > From: Matthew Mondor <mm_lists%pulsar-zone.net@localhost>
 > To: gnats-bugs%NetBSD.org@localhost
 > Cc: 
 > Subject: Re: pkg/43811 (pkgsrc-2010Q2 - emulators/vice build (wrong patch))
 > Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 20:47:49 -0400
 > 
 >  On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 21:40:04 +0000 (UTC)
 >  Matthew Mondor <mm_lists%pulsar-zone.net@localhost> wrote:
 >  
 >  >  The manual page for XShm(3) makes no mention of shmproto.h, only of
 >  >  sys/shm.h and X11/extensions/XShm.h, which might suggest that including
 >  >  shmproto.h was to cope with a bug on a specific X11 system which
 >  >  doesn't automatically include it via its XShm.h.  Unless XShm.h is now
 >  >  deprecated and shmproto.h is the new official include on newer X11?
 >  
 >  I sent a post to tech-x11 for advice.
 
 So after no reply whatsoever :)  I did a few searches and noticed that
 when FreeBSD upgraded XOrg they fixed this which they considered a bug,
 by making XShm.h include implicitely shmproto.h.  I also saw a bunch of
 related complaints and broken package reports that happened on various
 OS when XOrg was updated to 7.5, so this is a known issue.
 
 Would it make sense to go the same route FreeBSD went for -current
 base-X11, on which including XShm.h (which seems the standard include
 to use the MIT-SHM extension) is no longer enough, when this works on
 NetBSD-5 and older?
 
 Thanks,
 -- 
 Matt