Stuart Henderson <s...@spacehopper.org> wrote:
> On 2011/02/24 14:37, david.l.cantr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Attached are updated and new patches for the sysutils/conky port. The
> > patches enable the ${apm_adapter}, ${apm_battery_life}, and
> > ${apm_battery_time} variables in conky on amd64. There is also a patch to
> > the man page explaining these variables are also available on OpenBSD.
> >
> > I made these patches on the conky port from the OPENBSD_4_8 branch. I am
> > not sure if current has an updated conky port, but I do know that at least
> > the latest stable upstream conky release does not have these patches.
> > I've submitted these fixes to the upstream maintainers.
>
> it's likely that every single port in the tree has changed
> between OPENBSD_4_8 and OPENBSD_4_9, conky certainly has.
Sure. I'm unclear as to whether the previous release branches still take
on patches after a new stable release is made. I only have a single
usable OpenBSD system right now, and that's running 4.8. I figured the
patches would be useful in at least a "hey, has anyone seen if this still
affects 4.9?" capacity.
I did check the upstream code and 1.8.2 (OPENBSD_4_8 is using 1.7.2) still
has the same OpenBSD support, so I don't think anyone upstream has touched
it. So my thought there was that even if ports for OPENBSD_4_9 has
updated to a more recent version of conky, I think the problem is still
there.
> > dev = obsd_sensors.device; // FIXME: read more than one device
> >
> > - /* for (dev = 0; dev < MAXSENSORDEVICES; dev++) { */
> > + for (dev = 0; dev < MAXSENSORDEVICES; dev++) {
> > mib[2] = dev;
> > if (sysctl(mib, 3, &sensordev, &sdlen, NULL, 0) == -1) {
> > - if (errno != ENOENT) {
> > - warn("sysctl");
> > - }
> > - return;
> > - // continue;
> > + if (errno == ENOENT) /* end of sensors */
> > + return;
> > + if (errno == ENXIO) /* missing e.g. usb sensor that was
> > unplugged */
> > + continue;
> > }
> > for (type = 0; type < SENSOR_MAX_TYPES; type++) {
> > mib[3] = type;
> > @@ -496,7 +495,8 @@ void update_obsd_sensors()
> > sensor_cnt++;
> > }
> > }
> > - /* } */
> > + break; // FIXME: read more than one device
> > + }
>
> did you check that multiple devices work properly? istr having
> problems with this when i converted it to the new sensors api.
No, I did not. The first two hunks of patch-src_openbsd_c were already
there, my additions were the architecture checks in hunks 3, 4, and 5.
> > -#if defined(__i386) || defined(__x86_64)
> > +#if defined(__i386) || defined(__amd64)
>
> no need for this, __x86_64 is already defined.
>
> $ arch -s
> amd64
>
> $ cpp -dM /dev/null | grep x86
> #define __x86_64 1
> #define __x86_64__ 1
Fair enough. I was unsure if this was a style preference or not. I
decided to go with 'amd64' as that's the arch name and I'd seen a least
several other places where the __amd64 macros are used rather than
__x86_64.
> > + || defined(__OpenBSD__)) \
> > + && (defined(i386) || defined(__i386__) || defined(__amd64__))
>
> is it necessary to restrict arch like this? there are others
> which use apm (probably at least zaurus, macppc, longsoon).
Probably not. It may be better to invert the architecture check because
the list of non-applicable arches may be shorter. Upstream had it
restricted to i386 already, I just added amd64.
Thanks,
--
David Cantrell <david.l.cantr...@gmail.com>
KB1PCX | http://blog.burdell.org/
