On 25.05.2012, at 20:39, Wesley Shields wrote: > 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.
Hi, please go ahead and commit and close ports/168214 using the last version of the patch and please bump PORTREVISION. Sorry for this, i didn't noticed the configure arg change for building without berkeley-db. Kind regards and thanks Joerg_______________________________________________ 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"