On 2017/05/31 15:52, Marc Espie wrote:
> On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 07:18:40PM -0700, Mike Larkin wrote:
> > sdlmame requires wxneeded for many of its emulated targets.
> >
> > ok?
> >
> >
> > Index: Makefile
> > ===
> > RCS file: /cvs
On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 07:18:40PM -0700, Mike Larkin wrote:
> sdlmame requires wxneeded for many of its emulated targets.
>
> ok?
>
>
> Index: Makefile
> ===
> RCS file: /cvs/ports/emulators/sdlmame/Makefile,v
> retrieving revision
On 2017/05/30 19:18, Mike Larkin wrote:
> sdlmame requires wxneeded for many of its emulated targets.
>
> ok?
Please bump REVISION, then it's OK.
>
> Index: Makefile
> ===
> RCS file: /cvs/ports/emulators/sdlmame/Makefile,v
> retr
sdlmame requires wxneeded for many of its emulated targets.
ok?
Index: Makefile
===
RCS file: /cvs/ports/emulators/sdlmame/Makefile,v
retrieving revision 1.50
diff -u -p -r1.50 Makefile
--- Makefile24 Apr 2017 07:52:21 -
On 04/04/15 14:00, Brian Callahan wrote:
> Hi ports --
>
> Here's an update for MAME. Works on my amd64 with some of my arcade PCB
> dumps. There are some "ugh" moments in the patches but this is how it's
> going to have to be...
>
> OK?
>
> ~Brian
>
Ping.
Hi ports --
Here's an update for MAME. Works on my amd64 with some of my arcade PCB
dumps. There are some "ugh" moments in the patches but this is how it's
going to have to be...
OK?
~Brian
Index: Makefile
===
RCS file: /cvs/ports/
Hi ports --
Here's the update for MAME. Will send the MESS diff (basically the same
thing) in a separate email.
Works on amd64, can I get an i386 test?
OK?
~Brian
Index: Makefile
===
RCS file: /cvs/ports/emulators/sdlmame/Makef
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 05:02:58PM -0400, Brian Callahan wrote:
>
> On 04/28/14 18:31, Brian Callahan wrote:
> >
> >On 04/28/14 01:47, Anthony J. Bentley wrote:
> >>Brian Callahan writes:
> >>>On 04/18/14 10:06, Brian Callahan wrote:
> Hi ports --
>
> After missing a few versions (whi
On 04/28/14 18:31, Brian Callahan wrote:
On 04/28/14 01:47, Anthony J. Bentley wrote:
Brian Callahan writes:
On 04/18/14 10:06, Brian Callahan wrote:
Hi ports --
After missing a few versions (which, amazingly, shipped broken),
here's an update for MAME to its latest verison.
Did the licens
On 04/28/14 01:47, Anthony J. Bentley wrote:
Brian Callahan writes:
On 04/18/14 10:06, Brian Callahan wrote:
Hi ports --
After missing a few versions (which, amazingly, shipped broken),
here's an update for MAME to its latest verison.
Did the licensing kerfuffle ever get resolved? (A few mon
On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 4:06 PM, Brian Callahan wrote:
> The netlist/nl_base.h patch feels weird, and makes me wonder if I haven't
> missed something obvious.
I think it's needed for deconflicting:
>$ grep -w _C /usr/include/ctype.h
#define _C 0x20
Ciao,
David
Brian Callahan writes:
>
> On 04/18/14 10:06, Brian Callahan wrote:
> > Hi ports --
> >
> > After missing a few versions (which, amazingly, shipped broken),
> > here's an update for MAME to its latest verison.
Did the licensing kerfuffle ever get resolved? (A few months ago Haze
complained about
On 04/18/14 10:06, Brian Callahan wrote:
Hi ports --
After missing a few versions (which, amazingly, shipped broken),
here's an update for MAME to its latest verison.
The netlist/nl_base.h patch feels weird, and makes me wonder if I
haven't missed something obvious.
I'll be sending a seco
Hi ports --
After missing a few versions (which, amazingly, shipped broken), here's
an update for MAME to its latest verison.
The netlist/nl_base.h patch feels weird, and makes me wonder if I
haven't missed something obvious.
I'll be sending a second mail for sdlmess shortly.
This works we
On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 01:12:46PM -0400, Brian Callahan wrote:
> On 05/23/13 13:16, Brian Callahan wrote:
> >On 5/20/2013 1:16 PM, Brian Callahan wrote:
> >>Hi ports --
> >>
> >>Here's the latest sdlmame updated. Tested good on amd64.
> >>
> >>OK?
> >>
> >>~Brian
> >>
> >
> >Ping.
> >
>
> Anyone?
On 05/23/13 13:16, Brian Callahan wrote:
On 5/20/2013 1:16 PM, Brian Callahan wrote:
Hi ports --
Here's the latest sdlmame updated. Tested good on amd64.
OK?
~Brian
Ping.
Anyone? Reattached for convenience. ~Brian
Index: Makefile
On 5/20/2013 1:16 PM, Brian Callahan wrote:
Hi ports --
Here's the latest sdlmame updated. Tested good on amd64.
OK?
~Brian
Ping.
Hi ports --
Here's the latest sdlmame updated. Tested good on amd64.
OK?
~Brian
? sdlmame0148u5.diff
Index: Makefile
===
RCS file: /cvs/ports/emulators/sdlmame/Makefile,v
retrieving revision 1.31
diff -u -p -u -p -r1.31 Makefile
-
On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 5:12 PM, Brian Callahan wrote:
> Fully rerolled, the real sdlmess diff is identical to this one.
>
> ~Brian
>
>
untested but diff reads ok.
if it works for you ok by me.
f.-
Fully rerolled, the real sdlmess diff is identical to this one.
~Brian
Index: Makefile
===
RCS file: /cvs/ports/emulators/sdlmame/Makefile,v
retrieving revision 1.29
diff -u -p -r1.29 Makefile
--- Makefile 14 Apr 2013 17:30:56 -
Hi ports --
Attached is a minor update for sdlmame. sdlmess patch will be in another
email.
Works for me on amd64.
OK?
~Brian
Index: Makefile
===
RCS file: /cvs/ports/emulators/sdlmame/Makefile,v
retrieving revision 1.29
diff -u
Update to 0.148u2. Tested on amd64.
OK?
f.-
Index: Makefile
===
RCS file: /cvs/ports/emulators/sdlmame/Makefile,v
retrieving revision 1.26
diff -u -p -r1.26 Makefile
--- Makefile11 Mar 2013 11:06:04 - 1.26
+++ Makefile
Update sdlmame to 0148u1.
OK?
f.-
Index: Makefile
===
RCS file: /cvs/ports/emulators/sdlmame/Makefile,v
retrieving revision 1.24
diff -u -p -r1.24 Makefile
--- Makefile6 Feb 2013 10:19:52 - 1.24
+++ Makefile9 Mar 20
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 10:43:43AM +, Federico Schwindt wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 4:36 PM, David Coppa wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 5:20 PM, Federico Schwindt wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> The attached diff updates sdlmame to 0.148 and sets myself as
> >> maintainer. With input and s
On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 4:36 PM, David Coppa wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 5:20 PM, Federico Schwindt wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> The attached diff updates sdlmame to 0.148 and sets myself as
>> maintainer. With input and some changes from dcoppa@.
>> It requires the MAXTSIZ increase to 128 MB, otherw
On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 5:20 PM, Federico Schwindt wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The attached diff updates sdlmame to 0.148 and sets myself as
> maintainer. With input and some changes from dcoppa@.
> It requires the MAXTSIZ increase to 128 MB, otherwise it will fail
> with ENOMEM so make sure your vmparam.h i
Hi,
The attached diff updates sdlmame to 0.148 and sets myself as
maintainer. With input and some changes from dcoppa@.
It requires the MAXTSIZ increase to 128 MB, otherwise it will fail
with ENOMEM so make sure your vmparam.h is up to date.
Comments? OK?
f.-
sdlmame.diff
Description: Binary da
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 11:47 AM, Federico Schwindt wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Attached is an update to 0.146. Tested on amd64.
Unless someone objects I will commit this later today.
Thanks,
f.-
Hi,
Attached is an update to 0.146. Tested on amd64.
OK?
f.-
Index: sdlmame/Makefile
===
RCS file: /cvs/ports/emulators/sdlmame/Makefile,v
retrieving revision 1.20
diff -u -p -r1.20 Makefile
--- sdlmame/Makefile4 Mar 2012 01:46:4
On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 10:07 AM, Jonathan Gray wrote:
> not reflected in the diff but patches/patch-src_mame_video_mcd212_c gets
> removed with this update.
> [..]
too bad you didn't mention this before. i had a diff that i was
planning to send today.
your diff misses the removal of:
-
not reflected in the diff but patches/patch-src_mame_video_mcd212_c gets
removed with this update.
Index: Makefile
===
RCS file: /cvs/ports/emulators/sdlmame/Makefile,v
retrieving revision 1.19
diff -u -p -u -p -r1.19 Makefile
--- Mak
And now moving to 0.143u3.
OK?
f.-
Index: Makefile
===
RCS file: /cvs/ports/emulators/sdlmame/Makefile,v
retrieving revision 1.18
diff -u -p -r1.18 Makefile
--- Makefile27 Nov 2011 12:42:28 - 1.18
+++ Makefile15 Dec
Update to 0.143u2.
OK?
f.-
Index: Makefile
===
RCS file: /cvs/ports/emulators/sdlmame/Makefile,v
retrieving revision 1.18
diff -u -p -r1.18 Makefile
--- Makefile27 Nov 2011 12:42:28 - 1.18
+++ Makefile12 Dec 2011 14
Yet another release, this time 0.144.
Any oks?
f.-
Index: emulators/sdlmame/Makefile
===
RCS file: /cvs/ports/emulators/sdlmame/Makefile,v
retrieving revision 1.17
diff -u -p -r1.17 Makefile
--- emulators/sdlmame/Makefile 16 Nov 201
anyone?
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 10:46 AM, Federico G. Schwindt wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Not trivial update to sdlmame 0143pl9. Tested on amd64.
> -tools is not longer a run dependency because it's not needed and will
> conflict with the upcoming sdlmess update.
> This will break sdlmess for a short peri
Hi,
Not trivial update to sdlmame 0143pl9. Tested on amd64.
-tools is not longer a run dependency because it's not needed and will conflict
with the upcoming sdlmess update.
This will break sdlmess for a short period of time or we can simply remove the
sdlmess' dependency on the sdlmame-tools.
S
On 2011/06/17 12:47, Pierre Riteau wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 4:01 PM, Stuart Henderson
> wrote:
> > In gmane.os.openbsd.ports, you wrote:
> >> keeping sdlmame is just fine. mame has different targets, one of them
> >> (and the only one we care) is sdlmame. i personally don't care but i
> >
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 4:01 PM, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> In gmane.os.openbsd.ports, you wrote:
>> keeping sdlmame is just fine. mame has different targets, one of them
>> (and the only one we care) is sdlmame. i personally don't care but i
>> don't see any reason to change names. about the u suf
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 02:00:12PM +0100, Federico Schwindt wrote:
> > It really is! No game (not one) worked until I converted the ROM names
> > to lower case ;)
>
> i guess we're not understanding each other. Even if the case matches
> some games do not work as roms are somewhat tied to mame ver
sure, applied. thanks for the input.
i will try to look into the -verifyroms now.
f.-
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 3:01 PM, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> In gmane.os.openbsd.ports, you wrote:
>> keeping sdlmame is just fine. mame has different targets, one of them
>> (and the only one we care) is sdlmame
In gmane.os.openbsd.ports, you wrote:
> keeping sdlmame is just fine. mame has different targets, one of them
> (and the only one we care) is sdlmame. i personally don't care but i
> don't see any reason to change names. about the u suffix, right, i'm
> not sure either.
> what's other porters opin
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 12:38 PM, Edd Barrett wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 11:16:24AM +0100, Federico Schwindt wrote:
>> No, they're not. newer versions requires different roms for some games.
>> It's not about casing.
>
> It really is! No game (not one) worked until I converted the ROM names
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 11:16:24AM +0100, Federico Schwindt wrote:
> No, they're not. newer versions requires different roms for some games.
> It's not about casing.
It really is! No game (not one) worked until I converted the ROM names
to lower case ;)
> and i take it does not break in the curre
>[..]
>> as i said privately i'd like to commit something soon as the games you
>> found around are hardly good for the in tree version.
>
> They are, just that I had to write a script to lowercase all of the file
> names.
No, they're not. newer versions requires different roms for some games.
It
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 10:36:25AM +0100, Federico Schwindt wrote:
> keeping sdlmame is just fine. mame has different targets, one of them
> (and the only one we care) is sdlmame. i personally don't care but i
> don't see any reason to change names.
Officially SDLmame is no more? Correct? That so
keeping sdlmame is just fine. mame has different targets, one of them
(and the only one we care) is sdlmame. i personally don't care but i
don't see any reason to change names. about the u suffix, right, i'm
not sure either.
as i said privately i'd like to commit something soon as the games you
fou
On Thu, Jun 09, 2011 at 03:10:33AM +0100, Federico Schwindt wrote:
> >> Comments? OK?
Also, I have a suspicion that this package should just be called "mame" and not
sdlmame, as explained here (i was reporting bugs in gnome-video-arcade):
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=652465
I am no
sound is fine here (amd64 with aucat running).
not sure what you mean with not being able to find it but works if you
put the bios rom. mind to clarify?
f.-
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 6:53 PM, Edd Barrett wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 03, 2011 at 10:12:14PM +0100, Federico Schwindt wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> The at
On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 06:53:59PM +0100, Edd Barrett wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 03, 2011 at 10:12:14PM +0100, Federico Schwindt wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > The attached diff updates sdlmame to 0.142u4. Tested in amd64 with a
> > bunch of games.
> > I've removed the maintainer as per his request.
> > Comment
On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 06:53:59PM +0100, Edd Barrett wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 03, 2011 at 10:12:14PM +0100, Federico Schwindt wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > The attached diff updates sdlmame to 0.142u4. Tested in amd64 with a
> > bunch of games.
> > I've removed the maintainer as per his request.
> > Comment
On Fri, Jun 03, 2011 at 10:12:14PM +0100, Federico Schwindt wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The attached diff updates sdlmame to 0.142u4. Tested in amd64 with a
> bunch of games.
> I've removed the maintainer as per his request.
> Comments? OK?
I have built this successfully on amd64 and i386. I have played som
Hi,
The attached diff updates sdlmame to 0.142u4. Tested in amd64 with a
bunch of games.
I've removed the maintainer as per his request.
Comments? OK?
f.-
Index: Makefile
===
RCS file: /cvs/ports/emulators/sdlmame/Makefile,v
retrievi
To version 0.132.
Index: Makefile
===
RCS file: /home/priteau/cvs/ports/emulators/sdlmame/Makefile,v
retrieving revision 1.4
diff -N -p -u Makefile
--- Makefile24 Apr 2009 14:47:16 - 1.4
+++ Makefile12 Jun 2009 06:52:
53 matches
Mail list logo
