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"
