=> Bootstrap dependency digest>=20010302: found digest-20121220 => Bootstrap dependency fetch-[0-9]*: found fetch-1.8nb1 WARNING: [license.mk] Every package should define a LICENSE. => Checksum SHA1 OK for mflteco.tar.gz => Checksum RMD160 OK for mflteco.tar.gz ===> Installing dependencies for mflteco-19920331nb1 ========================================================================== The following variables will affect the build process of this package, mflteco-19920331nb1. Their current value is shown below: * CURSES_DEFAULT = ncurses Based on these variables, the following variables have been set: * CURSES_TYPE = ncurses * TERMCAP_TYPE = curses You may want to abort the process now with CTRL-C and change their value before continuing. Be sure to run `/usr/pkg/bin/bmake clean' after the changes. ========================================================================== => Tool dependency nbpatch-[0-9]*: found nbpatch-20100124 => Tool dependency checkperms>=1.1: found checkperms-1.11 => Full dependency ncurses>=5.4nb1: found ncurses-5.9 ===> Overriding tools for mflteco-19920331nb1 ===> Extracting for mflteco-19920331nb1 ===> Patching for mflteco-19920331nb1 cp /tmp/pkgsrc/editors/mflteco/work/mflteco/Makefile.sun4 /tmp/pkgsrc/editors/mflteco/work/mflteco/Makefile => Applying pkgsrc patches for mflteco-19920331nb1 => Verifying /usr/pkgsrc/editors/mflteco/patches/patch-aa => Applying pkgsrc patch /usr/pkgsrc/editors/mflteco/patches/patch-aa Hmm... Looks like a unified diff to me... The text leading up to this was: -------------------------- |$NetBSD: patch-aa,v 1.2 2012/12/27 06:13:20 dholland Exp $ | |- add defines to enable standard things | |--- Makefile.orig 2005-12-28 22:07:58.000000000 +0100 |+++ Makefile -------------------------- Patching file Makefile using Plan A... Hunk #1 succeeded at 5. done => Verifying /usr/pkgsrc/editors/mflteco/patches/patch-ab => Applying pkgsrc patch /usr/pkgsrc/editors/mflteco/patches/patch-ab Hmm... Looks like a unified diff to me... The text leading up to this was: -------------------------- |$NetBSD: patch-ab,v 1.2 2012/12/27 06:13:20 dholland Exp $ | |- use standard headers |- handle EOF from getc() correctly |- move function declarations to the header file |- use some static |- declare void functions void |- use some c89 |- don't index arrays with (signed) char |- call execl() properly | |--- te_exec2.c.orig 1993-08-05 22:29:34.000000000 +0000 |+++ te_exec2.c -------------------------- Patching file te_exec2.c using Plan A... Hunk #1 succeeded at 19. Hunk #2 succeeded at 36. Hunk #3 succeeded at 392. Hunk #4 succeeded at 499. Hunk #5 succeeded at 526. Hunk #6 succeeded at 565. Hunk #7 succeeded at 615. Hunk #8 succeeded at 674. Hunk #9 succeeded at 682. Hunk #10 succeeded at 784. Hunk #11 succeeded at 826. Hunk #12 succeeded at 880. Hunk #13 succeeded at 895. Hunk #14 succeeded at 925. Hunk #15 succeeded at 940. Hunk #16 succeeded at 965. Hunk #17 succeeded at 1144. Hunk #18 succeeded at 1163. Hunk #19 succeeded at 1178. done => Verifying /usr/pkgsrc/editors/mflteco/patches/patch-ac => Applying pkgsrc patch /usr/pkgsrc/editors/mflteco/patches/patch-ac Hmm... Looks like a unified diff to me... The text leading up to this was: -------------------------- |$NetBSD: patch-ac,v 1.2 2012/12/27 06:13:20 dholland Exp $ | |- use some static |- don't put function declarations inside function bodies |- remove unused goto-label |- call ctype.h functions correctly |- don't index arrays with (signed) char |- remove silly code that provokes a pointer width warning |- declare void functions void |- remove unused variable | |--- te_rdcmd.c.orig 1993-08-05 22:29:35.000000000 +0000 |+++ te_rdcmd.c -------------------------- Patching file te_rdcmd.c using Plan A... Hunk #1 succeeded at 9. Hunk #2 succeeded at 32. Hunk #3 succeeded at 108. Hunk #4 succeeded at 121. Hunk #5 succeeded at 241. Hunk #6 succeeded at 261. Hunk #7 succeeded at 297. done => Verifying /usr/pkgsrc/editors/mflteco/patches/patch-ad => Applying pkgsrc patch /usr/pkgsrc/editors/mflteco/patches/patch-ad Hmm... Looks like a unified diff to me... The text leading up to this was: -------------------------- |$NetBSD: patch-ad,v 1.2 2012/12/27 06:13:20 dholland Exp $ | |- don't declare own errno |- use some const |- don't declare own fopen() |- do declare own functions |- use C89 | |--- te_defs.h.orig 1993-08-05 22:29:33.000000000 +0000 |+++ te_defs.h -------------------------- Patching file te_defs.h using Plan A... Hunk #1 succeeded at 387. Hunk #2 succeeded at 428. Hunk #3 succeeded at 461. done => Verifying /usr/pkgsrc/editors/mflteco/patches/patch-ae => Applying pkgsrc patch /usr/pkgsrc/editors/mflteco/patches/patch-ae Hmm... Looks like a unified diff to me... The text leading up to this was: -------------------------- |$NetBSD: patch-ae,v 1.2 2012/12/27 06:13:20 dholland Exp $ | |- use standard headers |- use some static |- initialize struct sigaction correctly |- declare own functions |- don't declare own errno |- restore missing close-comments |- declare void functions void |- use some c89 |- don't index arrays with (signed) char | |--- te_chario.c.orig 1993-08-05 22:29:33.000000000 +0000 |+++ te_chario.c -------------------------- Patching file te_chario.c using Plan A... Hunk #1 succeeded at 28. Hunk #2 succeeded at 43. Hunk #3 succeeded at 74. Hunk #4 succeeded at 98. Hunk #5 succeeded at 180. Hunk #6 succeeded at 229. Hunk #7 succeeded at 267. Hunk #8 succeeded at 285. Hunk #9 succeeded at 311. Hunk #10 succeeded at 446. Hunk #11 succeeded at 457. Hunk #12 succeeded at 481. Hunk #13 succeeded at 501. Hunk #14 succeeded at 525. Hunk #15 succeeded at 577. Hunk #16 succeeded at 588. Hunk #17 succeeded at 616. Hunk #18 succeeded at 630. Hunk #19 succeeded at 646. Hunk #20 succeeded at 674. Hunk #21 succeeded at 704. Hunk #22 succeeded at 716. Hunk #23 succeeded at 731. Hunk #24 succeeded at 743. Hunk #25 succeeded at 753. Hunk #26 succeeded at 781. done => Verifying /usr/pkgsrc/editors/mflteco/patches/patch-te__data.c => Applying pkgsrc patch /usr/pkgsrc/editors/mflteco/patches/patch-te__data.c Hmm... Looks like a unified diff to me... The text leading up to this was: -------------------------- |$NetBSD: patch-te__data.c,v 1.1 2012/12/27 06:13:20 dholland Exp $ | |- use const for string constants |- silence warning about initializer | |--- te_data.c.orig 1993-08-05 22:29:33.000000000 +0000 |+++ te_data.c -------------------------- Patching file te_data.c using Plan A... Hunk #1 succeeded at 12. Hunk #2 succeeded at 77. done => Verifying /usr/pkgsrc/editors/mflteco/patches/patch-te__exec0.c => Applying pkgsrc patch /usr/pkgsrc/editors/mflteco/patches/patch-te__exec0.c Hmm... Looks like a unified diff to me... The text leading up to this was: -------------------------- |$NetBSD: patch-te__exec0.c,v 1.1 2012/12/27 06:13:20 dholland Exp $ | |- declare void functions void |- remove unused variables |- use functions correctly |- don't index arrays with (signed) char | |--- te_exec0.c~ 1993-08-05 22:29:34.000000000 +0000 |+++ te_exec0.c -------------------------- Patching file te_exec0.c using Plan A... Hunk #1 succeeded at 13. Hunk #2 succeeded at 41. Hunk #3 succeeded at 54. done => Verifying /usr/pkgsrc/editors/mflteco/patches/patch-te__exec1.c => Applying pkgsrc patch /usr/pkgsrc/editors/mflteco/patches/patch-te__exec1.c Hmm... Looks like a unified diff to me... The text leading up to this was: -------------------------- |$NetBSD: patch-te__exec1.c,v 1.1 2012/12/27 06:13:20 dholland Exp $ | |- declare void functions void |- don't index arrays with (signed) char |- silence warnings about assignments in conditionals |- use functions correctly | |--- te_exec1.c~ 1993-08-05 22:29:34.000000000 +0000 |+++ te_exec1.c -------------------------- Patching file te_exec1.c using Plan A... Hunk #1 succeeded at 12. Hunk #2 succeeded at 167. Hunk #3 succeeded at 196. Hunk #4 succeeded at 501. Hunk #5 succeeded at 604. done => Verifying /usr/pkgsrc/editors/mflteco/patches/patch-te__fxstub.c => Applying pkgsrc patch /usr/pkgsrc/editors/mflteco/patches/patch-te__fxstub.c Hmm... Looks like a unified diff to me... The text leading up to this was: -------------------------- |$NetBSD: patch-te__fxstub.c,v 1.1 2012/12/27 06:13:20 dholland Exp $ | |- declare void functions void |- use c89 | |--- te_fxstub.c~ 1993-08-05 22:29:34.000000000 +0000 |+++ te_fxstub.c -------------------------- Patching file te_fxstub.c using Plan A... Hunk #1 succeeded at 10. done => Verifying /usr/pkgsrc/editors/mflteco/patches/patch-te__main.c => Applying pkgsrc patch /usr/pkgsrc/editors/mflteco/patches/patch-te__main.c Hmm... Looks like a unified diff to me... The text leading up to this was: -------------------------- |$NetBSD: patch-te__main.c,v 1.1 2012/12/27 06:13:20 dholland Exp $ | |- use standard headers |- move external function declarations to header file |- avoid implicit int |- declare void functions void |- use C89 some |- apply static to a couple local functions |- silence warnings about assignments in conditionals |- remove unused variables |- don't declare own getenv() | |--- te_main.c.orig 1993-08-05 22:29:34.000000000 +0000 |+++ te_main.c -------------------------- Patching file te_main.c using Plan A... Hunk #1 succeeded at 49. Hunk #2 succeeded at 72. Hunk #3 succeeded at 123. Hunk #4 succeeded at 135. Hunk #5 succeeded at 156. Hunk #6 succeeded at 194. Hunk #7 succeeded at 204. Hunk #8 succeeded at 240. Hunk #9 succeeded at 278. done => Verifying /usr/pkgsrc/editors/mflteco/patches/patch-te__srch.c => Applying pkgsrc patch /usr/pkgsrc/editors/mflteco/patches/patch-te__srch.c Hmm... Looks like a unified diff to me... The text leading up to this was: -------------------------- |$NetBSD: patch-te__srch.c,v 1.1 2012/12/27 06:13:20 dholland Exp $ | |- use static for local functions |- don't index arrays with (signed) char |- use functions correctly |- avoid implicit int |- remove unused variable | |--- te_srch.c~ 1993-08-05 22:29:35.000000000 +0000 |+++ te_srch.c -------------------------- Patching file te_srch.c using Plan A... Hunk #1 succeeded at 9. Hunk #2 succeeded at 46. Hunk #3 succeeded at 159. Hunk #4 succeeded at 235. Hunk #5 succeeded at 292. Hunk #6 succeeded at 347. Hunk #7 succeeded at 370. Hunk #8 succeeded at 433. done => Verifying /usr/pkgsrc/editors/mflteco/patches/patch-te__subs.c => Applying pkgsrc patch /usr/pkgsrc/editors/mflteco/patches/patch-te__subs.c Hmm... Looks like a unified diff to me... The text leading up to this was: -------------------------- |$NetBSD: patch-te__subs.c,v 1.1 2012/12/27 06:13:20 dholland Exp $ | |- declare void functions void |- don't index arrays with (signed) char |- use functions correctly | |--- te_subs.c.orig 1995-04-25 15:02:59.000000000 +0000 |+++ te_subs.c -------------------------- Patching file te_subs.c using Plan A... Hunk #1 succeeded at 21. Hunk #2 succeeded at 80. Hunk #3 succeeded at 167. Hunk #4 succeeded at 176. Hunk #5 succeeded at 242. Hunk #6 succeeded at 277. Hunk #7 succeeded at 294. Hunk #8 succeeded at 316. Hunk #9 succeeded at 341. Hunk #10 succeeded at 402. Hunk #11 succeeded at 428. Hunk #12 succeeded at 442. Hunk #13 succeeded at 466. Hunk #14 succeeded at 487. done => Verifying /usr/pkgsrc/editors/mflteco/patches/patch-te__utils.c => Applying pkgsrc patch /usr/pkgsrc/editors/mflteco/patches/patch-te__utils.c Hmm... Looks like a unified diff to me... The text leading up to this was: -------------------------- |$NetBSD: patch-te__utils.c,v 1.1 2012/12/27 06:13:20 dholland Exp $ | |- use standard headers |- don't declare own malloc |- fix signed/unsigned mismatches |- remove useless/dangerous cast |- declare void functions void |- avoid implicit int |- don't index arrays with signed char | |--- te_utils.c.orig 1993-08-05 22:29:35.000000000 +0000 |+++ te_utils.c -------------------------- Patching file te_utils.c using Plan A... Hunk #1 succeeded at 7. Hunk #2 succeeded at 15. Hunk #3 succeeded at 40. Hunk #4 succeeded at 53. Hunk #5 succeeded at 110. Hunk #6 succeeded at 129. Hunk #7 succeeded at 163. Hunk #8 succeeded at 200. Hunk #9 succeeded at 225. Hunk #10 succeeded at 252. Hunk #11 succeeded at 273. done => Verifying /usr/pkgsrc/editors/mflteco/patches/patch-te__window.c => Applying pkgsrc patch /usr/pkgsrc/editors/mflteco/patches/patch-te__window.c Hmm... Looks like a unified diff to me... The text leading up to this was: -------------------------- |$NetBSD: patch-te__window.c,v 1.1 2012/12/27 06:13:20 dholland Exp $ | |- remove unused variables |- fix signed/unsigned issues |- use static for local functions |- declare own functions |- declare void functions void |- use c89 |- don't index arrays with (signed) char |- patch up two uninitialized variables |- silence warnings about assignments in conditionals |- #if out unused function putchar_d() |- silence unnecessary pointer width warning | |--- te_window.c.orig 1995-04-25 15:02:41.000000000 +0000 |+++ te_window.c -------------------------- Patching file te_window.c using Plan A... Hunk #1 succeeded at 78. Hunk #2 succeeded at 162. Hunk #3 succeeded at 170. Hunk #4 succeeded at 226. Hunk #5 succeeded at 244. Hunk #6 succeeded at 329. Hunk #7 succeeded at 339. Hunk #8 succeeded at 403. Hunk #9 succeeded at 434. Hunk #10 succeeded at 536. Hunk #11 succeeded at 567. Hunk #12 succeeded at 594. Hunk #13 succeeded at 628. Hunk #14 succeeded at 645. Hunk #15 succeeded at 658. Hunk #16 succeeded at 844. Hunk #17 succeeded at 879. Hunk #18 succeeded at 891. Hunk #19 succeeded at 908. Hunk #20 succeeded at 932. Hunk #21 succeeded at 955. Hunk #22 succeeded at 987. Hunk #23 succeeded at 1009. Hunk #24 succeeded at 1072. Hunk #25 succeeded at 1103. Hunk #26 succeeded at 1116. Hunk #27 succeeded at 1129. Hunk #28 succeeded at 1139. Hunk #29 succeeded at 1156. Hunk #30 succeeded at 1184. Hunk #31 succeeded at 1205. Hunk #32 succeeded at 1244. done ===> Creating toolchain wrappers for mflteco-19920331nb1 ===> Configuring for mflteco-19920331nb1 => Checking for portability problems in extracted files