On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 8:38 PM, Wesley Shields <w...@freebsd.org> wrote: > 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.
Sounds good. One question: what do you mean by PORTREVISION being off by default? > I appreciate your thoroughness in this and apologize for the problem. Thanks! _______________________________________________ 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"