On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 01:20:46PM -0400, Robert Simmons wrote:
> On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 12:56 PM, Wesley Shields <w...@freebsd.org> wrote:
> > On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 12:21:54PM -0400, Robert Simmons wrote:
> >> 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?
> >
> > There is no need to bump PORTREVISION because the option which you are
> > changing is off by default so there's no need to force a rebuild of it
> > on the package cluster since your changes are going to have no effect
> > there.
> >
> > For those that have the option to on, it hasn't built properly for them
> > yet so bumping is going to have no effect either.
> 
> I understand what you're saying.  However, my change would actually
> change the package cluster.  Because those packages were built with
> "--without-berkeley-db" rather than "--with-berkeley-db=no" the old
> packages were built with broken BDB support by accident.  By fixing
> this, the default package is actually going to be different than the
> one built before this change.  I would recommend bumping PORTREVISION
> because of this.

That makes sense. Thanks for the clarification. I will be awaiting
maintainer approval or timeout then.

-- 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"

Reply via email to