On 04/10/12 09:12, Chuck Swiger wrote:
Hi--
On Apr 9, 2012, at 4:01 PM, Da Rock wrote:
To drag this up again, I was thinking about the number of cases I've found like
this recently, and I was considering what the most appropriate action to take
here. This one is obviously controversial, and I didn't have the time to do
more or test further, but for future reference I'd like some clarification.
I'd say a PR is not really appropriate as a response to an issue such as this
(unless the maintainer offers no response at all), but should I create a patch
to assist the maintainer? Or is that over doing it?
If I were to create a patch, what is the correct (usable) procedure? And for
something like this it would be an adjustment to BUILD_DEPENDS, correct?
If you think there is a missing dependency, then doing send-pr with the fix is
a reasonable procedure.
I was only thinking the maintainer might want to know and fix and test
themselves before commit. I know I would as a maintainer.
However, you might first want to look into what was different in your case from
pointyhat, since the builds of samba-3.x worked fine:
http://pointyhat.freebsd.org/errorlogs/amd64-9-latest-logs/samba34-3.4.14.log
http://pointyhat.freebsd.org/errorlogs/amd64-9-latest-logs/samba35-3.5.11.log
http://pointyhat.freebsd.org/errorlogs/amd64-9-latest-logs/samba36-3.6.3.log
Hmmm. You're right.
I can narrow it down to the SWAT or AIO option (most likely given the
obvious network connection there), but it could be ADS, ACL, or FAM; but
I doubt that very much. You have me intrigued now, I have to look into
it to know :)
So what should the patch look like? Am I correct in my understanding of
the BUILD_DEPENDS, or have I chased a goose on that one?
_______________________________________________
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
