On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 06:29:20PM -0400, Robert Simmons wrote: > On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 5:14 PM, Wesley Shields <w...@freebsd.org> wrote: > > On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 03:08:31PM -0400, Robert Simmons wrote: > >> On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 8:57 AM, Wesley Shields <w...@freebsd.org> wrote: > >> > As the person who committed this update I will take responsibility for > >> > seeing this through. Would you mind opening a PR with this patch and CC > >> > both myself and the maintainer so it can be properly tracked. I will > >> > work with both of you to make sure it is addressed. > >> > >> I got some good feedback about the patch. ?I was missing a "\". ?Also, > >> it was noted that I shouldn't make changes to the default settings in > >> this patch since it is meant to correct a problem. ?I removed the > >> change to default. > > > > I'm not opposed to removing the change to the default, but it does cause > > another problem. See below. > > > >> Perhaps the different default is not the best solution. ?Maybe there > >> should be a message that at least one backend is needed for the port > >> to function, but none have been selected by default? > > > > If a backend is required the port should refuse to build if no backend > > is selected. This is pretty easy to do, just check for at least one of > > the backends. I have no idea if multiple backends can be supported so > > you may or may not want to also check for that. > > I may have been too hasty. I've thought of a situation where one > would want to build the port with no backend at all. If one wanted to > use the tools in the port to administrate a remote install of Heimdal, > they may want to build it without a backend. > > My initial thoughts were only for installing the port as a Heimdal > server, and with the --with-berkeley-db=no problem fixed it does not > wrongly find the version of BDB in the base OS. With this fix, the > port can function with no backends selected. It just won't be able to > function in a server capacity. > > I am also not an expert in Heimdal, I just installed it from source > via its own instructions and compared that with what the FreeBSD port > was doing. I'd wait for the maintainer to make changes to the default > behavior for the above reason.
This all sounds perfectly reasonable to me. :) If I'm understanding you correctly the patch[1] in ports/168214 is the correct one to commit. The only change I would make is not bumping PORTREVISION since the option is off by default. Sounds like the only thing left to do is wait for maintainer comment on the PR and commit accordingly. I appreciate your thoroughness in this and apologize for the problem. [1]: http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports%2F168214&getpatch=2 -- WXS _______________________________________________ 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"
