Re: HEADS UP: Berkeley DB 4...4.7 port removals/upgrades may require manual preparation
On 24. August 2014 15:36:18 MESZ, Michael Gmelin gre...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2014 15:08:07 +0200
olli hauer oha...@gmx.de wrote:
On 2014-08-24 14:37, Michael Gmelin wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2014 14:30:06 +0200
Kurt Jaeger li...@opsec.eu wrote:
Hi!
Hm, using USE_BDB=$numble looks wrong to me in devel/ice.
Can you test the following patch.
Index: Makefile
===
--- devel/ice/Makefile(revision 365910)
+++ devel/ice/Makefile(working copy)
@@ -27,7 +27,8 @@
.endif
USES= iconv gmake
-USE_BDB= 5
+USE_BDB= yes
+WANT_BDB_VER= 5
INVALID_BDB_VER= 40 41 42 43 44 46 47 48 6
USE_LDCONFIG= yes
BUILD_WRKSRC?= ${WRKSRC}/cpp
@Kurt: Could you test and confirm? If this works, I'll commit the
patch.
Yes, it builds.
I created a commit request
https://reviews.freebsd.org/D679
Kurt, or you can commit this even w.o. PR.
The patch does not break anything but allows the port to build as
required. I assume there are even more easter eggs in the tree,
specially for USE_BDB.
A short grep shows that the following ports are affected, the question
is if simply converting them to
USE_BDB= yes
WANT_BDB_VER= prior value of USE_BDB
is the right thing to do.
archivers/rpm4/Makefile
chinese/xsim/Makefile
comms/trustedqsl/Makefile
comms/xastir/Makefile
databases/dbtool/Makefile
databases/evolution-data-server/Makefile
databases/fortytwo-bdb/Makefile
databases/libgda5/Makefile
databases/memcachedb/Makefile
databases/memcacheq/Makefile
databases/p5-BDB/Makefile
databases/p5-BerkeleyDB/Makefile
databases/py-bsddb/Makefile
databases/py-bsddb3/Makefile
databases/rdfdb/Makefile
devel/apr1/Makefile
devel/libqxt/Makefile
dns/dnshistory/Makefile
editors/nvi-devel/Makefile
graphics/fortytwo/Makefile
japanese/mutt-devel/Makefile
mail/avenger/Makefile
mail/bogofilter/Makefile
mail/dk-milter/Makefile
mail/drac/Makefile
mail/evolution-exchange/Makefile
mail/greyfix/Makefile
mail/isync/Makefile
mail/meta1/Makefile
mail/mutt/Makefile
mail/opendkim/Makefile
mail/spamprobe/Makefile
net-p2p/cdonkey/Makefile
net/freeswitch-core-devel/Makefile
net/netatalk/Makefile
net/netatalk3/Makefile
net/openldap24-server/Makefile
news/inn/Makefile
science/gramps/Makefile
security/pks/Makefile
security/sks/Makefile
sysutils/apt/Makefile
sysutils/cfengine22/Makefile
sysutils/cfengine32/Makefile
www/oops/Makefile
--
Michael Gmelin
___
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
No need. USE_BDB with exact version (I.e. Without + should just work, if it
does not, we will fix the framework.
___
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
Re: HEADS UP: Berkeley DB 4...4.7 port removals/upgrades may require manual preparation
On 24. August 2014 21:55:40 MESZ, Kurt Jaeger li...@opsec.eu wrote: Hi! There is the possible mechanism of WITH_BDB_VER=6 in /etc/make.conf. Is there a way to also add some DEFAULT_VERSIONS= bdb=6 like syntax in /usr/ports/Mk/bsd.default-versions.mk to keep the mechanism similar to other default versions ? -- p...@opsec.eu+49 171 3101372 6 years to go ! ___ 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 Should be doable, but is not yet implemented. ___ 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
Re: HEADS UP: Berkeley DB 4...4.7 port removals/upgrades may require manual preparation
On 24. August 2014 16:46:17 MESZ, Dennis Glatting free...@pki2.com wrote:
On Sun, 2014-08-24 at 15:08 +0200, olli hauer wrote:
On 2014-08-24 14:37, Michael Gmelin wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2014 14:30:06 +0200
Kurt Jaeger li...@opsec.eu wrote:
Hi!
Hm, using USE_BDB=$numble looks wrong to me in devel/ice.
Can you test the following patch.
Index: Makefile
===
--- devel/ice/Makefile(revision 365910)
+++ devel/ice/Makefile(working copy)
@@ -27,7 +27,8 @@
.endif
USES= iconv gmake
-USE_BDB= 5
+USE_BDB= yes
+WANT_BDB_VER= 5
INVALID_BDB_VER= 40 41 42 43 44 46 47 48 6
USE_LDCONFIG= yes
BUILD_WRKSRC?= ${WRKSRC}/cpp
@Kurt: Could you test and confirm? If this works, I'll commit the
patch.
Yes, it builds.
I created a commit request
https://reviews.freebsd.org/D679
Kurt, or you can commit this even w.o. PR.
The patch does not break anything but allows the port to build as
required.
I assume there are even more easter eggs in the tree, specially for
USE_BDB.
Yep:
root@Junker# more databases/evolution-data-server/Makefile
...
USE_BDB=41+
___
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
The framework automatically upgrades these to 48+ internally.
___
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
Re: HEADS UP: Berkeley DB 4...4.7 port removals/upgrades may require manual preparation
On 25. August 2014 07:57:36 MESZ, Scot Hetzel swhet...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 12:16 PM, Michael Gmelin gre...@freebsd.org wrote: On Sun, 24 Aug 2014 11:59:37 -0500 Scot Hetzel swhet...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 7:20 AM, Michael Gmelin gre...@freebsd.org wrote: @Olli: Checking Mk/bsd.databasemk it seems like you're right. It's quite amusing how this went unnoticed for so long, it has been in there for eight years :) As the original author of the USE_BDB code, the USE_BDB=5 had worked in the past. As it is supposed to mean that this port only uses that version of BDB. The code was changed on Aug 21 (r365599) and the author of the new code might have forgot to test this case. Not sure if you read the rest of the thread, but this is still working as intended (I tested using both the old and new version). The issue is, that USE_BDB=version means USE_BDB=yes, WITH_BDB_VER=version, but Kurt has WITH_BDB_VER=6 in make.conf, which overrides this version number and version =6 is invalid for devel/ice. So basically it works as designed, Kurt wanted a specific version of bdb, which doesn't work for devel/ice. The fix was to add WANT_BDB_VER= 5 in devel/ice, which I guess is ok, since this is the only version it really works with (and I guess I could remove the INVALID directive now, since WANT means really *want*). Hmm, I thought I had it implemented this way at one time. Any way. What we should be doing with the WITH_BDB_VER is not overriding the USE_BDB value. Instead we should see if it is a VALID version to use for this port, if it is not, then use the USE_BDB value. So basically the code should be doing the following: USE_BDB=yes - use the default version (48+) or the installed version if higher USE_BDB=yes, WITH_BDB_VER=6 - use version 6 USE_BDB=5 - should mean the same as USE_BDB=yes, WANT_BDB_VER=5 - shouldn't be able to override by setting WITH_BDB_VER=6 - this would also allow the removal of the WANT_BDB_VER variable. - no error should be generated when WITH_BDB_VER is set to an invalid version USE_BDB=48 6 - use (either 48 or 6) or the installed version that matches one of these versions - no error should be generated when WITH_BDB_VER is set to an invalid version USE_BDB=5+, WITH_BDB_VER=48 - use version 5+ or the installed version if higher - shouldn't allow downgrade to a lower unsupported version by setting the WITH_BDB_VER -- should we still display an error in this case or just install the port with bdb 5+? If we make the above changes to the code, then INVALID_BDB_VER and WANT_BDB_VER could disappear. My question is, what the point of INVALID_BDB_VER really is in this case, it seems a bit pointless to me given the trouble it caused Kurt and how we resolved this. Having a fully specified list of supported versions in WANT_BDB_VER seems better in this case (assuming WANT supports listing multiple versions). At the time I had implemented the code, INVALID_BDB_VER was meant to poke holes in the VER+: USE_BDB=2+ INVALID_BDB_VER=3 So the port would be able to use version 2 and 40+, and not 3. Probably should have just implanted it as: USE_BDB=2 40+ and skipped the INVALID_BDB_VER entirely. I was also thinking that we should make WITH_BDB_HIGHEST the default. It is used by VER+ when multiple versions of bdb are installed. That way we can remove this variable also. -- DISCLAIMER: No electrons were maimed while sending this message. Only slightly bruised. ___ 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 Scot, I rewrote all of the Berkeley DB detection code to match documentation, and I will check how we can optimise the new code for corner cases. Sorry about the inconvenience. Best, Matthias ___ 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
Re: HEADS UP: Berkeley DB 4...4.7 port removals/upgrades may require manual preparation
On 25 Aug 2014, at 12:00, Matthias Andree matthias.and...@gmx.de wrote:
On 24. August 2014 15:36:18 MESZ, Michael Gmelin gre...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2014 15:08:07 +0200
olli hauer oha...@gmx.de wrote:
On 2014-08-24 14:37, Michael Gmelin wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2014 14:30:06 +0200
Kurt Jaeger li...@opsec.eu wrote:
Hi!
Hm, using USE_BDB=$numble looks wrong to me in devel/ice.
Can you test the following patch.
Index: Makefile
===
--- devel/ice/Makefile(revision 365910)
+++ devel/ice/Makefile(working copy)
@@ -27,7 +27,8 @@
.endif
USES= iconv gmake
-USE_BDB= 5
+USE_BDB= yes
+WANT_BDB_VER= 5
INVALID_BDB_VER= 40 41 42 43 44 46 47 48 6
USE_LDCONFIG= yes
BUILD_WRKSRC?= ${WRKSRC}/cpp
@Kurt: Could you test and confirm? If this works, I'll commit the
patch.
Yes, it builds.
I created a commit request
https://reviews.freebsd.org/D679
Kurt, or you can commit this even w.o. PR.
The patch does not break anything but allows the port to build as
required. I assume there are even more easter eggs in the tree,
specially for USE_BDB.
A short grep shows that the following ports are affected, the question
is if simply converting them to
USE_BDB=yes
WANT_BDB_VER=prior value of USE_BDB
is the right thing to do.
archivers/rpm4/Makefile
chinese/xsim/Makefile
comms/trustedqsl/Makefile
comms/xastir/Makefile
databases/dbtool/Makefile
databases/evolution-data-server/Makefile
databases/fortytwo-bdb/Makefile
databases/libgda5/Makefile
databases/memcachedb/Makefile
databases/memcacheq/Makefile
databases/p5-BDB/Makefile
databases/p5-BerkeleyDB/Makefile
databases/py-bsddb/Makefile
databases/py-bsddb3/Makefile
databases/rdfdb/Makefile
devel/apr1/Makefile
devel/libqxt/Makefile
dns/dnshistory/Makefile
editors/nvi-devel/Makefile
graphics/fortytwo/Makefile
japanese/mutt-devel/Makefile
mail/avenger/Makefile
mail/bogofilter/Makefile
mail/dk-milter/Makefile
mail/drac/Makefile
mail/evolution-exchange/Makefile
mail/greyfix/Makefile
mail/isync/Makefile
mail/meta1/Makefile
mail/mutt/Makefile
mail/opendkim/Makefile
mail/spamprobe/Makefile
net-p2p/cdonkey/Makefile
net/freeswitch-core-devel/Makefile
net/netatalk/Makefile
net/netatalk3/Makefile
net/openldap24-server/Makefile
news/inn/Makefile
science/gramps/Makefile
security/pks/Makefile
security/sks/Makefile
sysutils/apt/Makefile
sysutils/cfengine22/Makefile
sysutils/cfengine32/Makefile
www/oops/Makefile
--
Michael Gmelin
___
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
No need. USE_BDB with exact version (I.e. Without + should just work, if it
does not, we will fix the framework.
It didn't in the case of devel/ice (maybe you can take a look at the last few
commits). The combination of
USE_BDB=5
INVALID_BDB=40 4248 6
And
WITH_BDB_VER=6
in /etc/make.conf causes the build to fail with the error reported by Kurt.
___
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
Re: HEADS UP: Berkeley DB 4...4.7 port removals/upgrades may require manual preparation
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 5:15 AM, Matthias Andree matthias.and...@gmx.de wrote:
On 25. August 2014 07:57:36 MESZ, Scot Hetzel swhet...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 12:16 PM, Michael Gmelin gre...@freebsd.org
wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2014 11:59:37 -0500
Scot Hetzel swhet...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 7:20 AM, Michael Gmelin gre...@freebsd.org
wrote:
@Olli: Checking Mk/bsd.databasemk it seems like you're right. It's
quite amusing how this went unnoticed for so long, it has been in
there for eight years :)
As the original author of the USE_BDB code, the USE_BDB=5 had worked
in the past. As it is supposed to mean that this port only uses that
version of BDB. The code was changed on Aug 21 (r365599) and the
author of the new code might have forgot to test this case.
Not sure if you read the rest of the thread, but this is still working
as intended (I tested using both the old and new version).
The issue is, that USE_BDB=version means USE_BDB=yes,
WITH_BDB_VER=version, but Kurt has WITH_BDB_VER=6 in make.conf,
which overrides this version number and version =6 is invalid for
devel/ice. So basically it works as designed, Kurt wanted a specific
version of bdb, which doesn't work for devel/ice.
The fix was to add WANT_BDB_VER= 5 in devel/ice, which I guess is ok,
since this is the only version it really works with (and I guess I
could remove the INVALID directive now, since WANT means really
*want*).
Hmm, I thought I had it implemented this way at one time. Any way.
What we should be doing with the WITH_BDB_VER is not overriding the
USE_BDB value. Instead we should see if it is a VALID version to use
for this port, if it is not, then use the USE_BDB value.
So basically the code should be doing the following:
USE_BDB=yes
- use the default version (48+) or the installed version if higher
USE_BDB=yes, WITH_BDB_VER=6
- use version 6
USE_BDB=5
- should mean the same as USE_BDB=yes, WANT_BDB_VER=5
- shouldn't be able to override by setting WITH_BDB_VER=6
- this would also allow the removal of the WANT_BDB_VER variable.
- no error should be generated when WITH_BDB_VER is set to an invalid
version
USE_BDB=48 6
- use (either 48 or 6) or the installed version that matches one of
these versions
- no error should be generated when WITH_BDB_VER is set to an invalid
version
USE_BDB=5+, WITH_BDB_VER=48
- use version 5+ or the installed version if higher
- shouldn't allow downgrade to a lower unsupported version by setting
the WITH_BDB_VER
-- should we still display an error in this case or just install the
port with bdb 5+?
If we make the above changes to the code, then INVALID_BDB_VER and
WANT_BDB_VER could disappear.
My question is, what the point of INVALID_BDB_VER really is in this
case, it seems a bit pointless to me given the trouble it caused Kurt
and how we resolved this. Having a fully specified list of supported
versions in WANT_BDB_VER seems better in this case (assuming WANT
supports listing multiple versions).
At the time I had implemented the code, INVALID_BDB_VER was meant to
poke holes in the VER+:
USE_BDB=2+
INVALID_BDB_VER=3
So the port would be able to use version 2 and 40+, and not 3.
Probably should have just implanted it as:
USE_BDB=2 40+
and skipped the INVALID_BDB_VER entirely.
I was also thinking that we should make WITH_BDB_HIGHEST the default.
It is used by VER+ when multiple versions of bdb are installed. That
way we can remove this variable also.
Scot,
I rewrote all of the Berkeley DB detection code to match documentation, and
I will check how we can optimise the new code for corner cases.
Sorry about the inconvenience.
Thanks for the code re-write.
Even I missed the corner case of checking that the WITH_BDB_VER was a
valid version for the port. If you can fix that, then the last 3 cases
may just work.
WITH_BDB_VER (global) - shouldn't generate an error if it doesn't
match a valid version for the port - use the port specified version
${UNIQUENAME:tu:S,-,_,}_WITH_BDB_VER (port specific) - should generate
an error if it doesn't match a valid version for the port
--
DISCLAIMER:
No electrons were maimed while sending this message. Only slightly bruised.
___
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
Re: HEADS UP: Berkeley DB 4...4.7 port removals/upgrades may require manual preparation
Am 24.08.2014 um 01:06 schrieb Peter Jeremy: On 2014-Aug-21 20:56:47 +0200, Matthias Andree mand...@freebsd.org wrote: The time has now come to remove these db4* ports, Berkeley DB versions 4.0 to 4.7, inclusively. Most of their dependent ports can cope with upgrades to db48, db5, or db6, most of the others could be patched to work. ... I have created a Wiki page that contains instructions, and points to SleepyCat's or Oracle's upgrading documentation, at https://wiki.freebsd.org/Ports/BerkeleyDBCleanup. This assumes that I know where and how BDB is being used. I've discovered that I have db41 installed on a couple of systems - it's required by textproc/redland, which in turn is required by editors/libreoffice. Whilst I can avoid using libreoffice whilst I upgrade, I have no idea how it uses BDB or where the database files might be. I suspect this scenario is true for the majority of people who have BDB installed. Peter, thank you for the feedback. The issue is that we don't have a way to easily identify only the direct dependents of BDB, but we get grandparent requisites, too, from the index, as you have found out in your case with libreoffice and redland. Redland is the port requiring BDB, and libreoffice inherits this requisite. When, among the upgrade steps on the WIki, you have reached the point where it is safe to upgrade the Berkeley DB and applications, there is a helper script in Tools/scripts/BDB-upgrade-helper.sh uses portmaster or portupgrade to rebuild the applications to use a newer Berkeley DB, and then offer to delete the old Berkeley DB ports. Partial relative paths aren't especially helpful. This should either be an absolute path or specify a cwd (presumably /usr/ports in this case). And, for reasons I don't understand, when I run BDB-upgrade-helper.sh, portmaster wants to install both db48 and db5. That is because some of the ports you need insist they cannot work with any other version, which is subject to a separate discussion, in the Subject Re: Strong objection to db4.8 deprecation! thread. I have revised the list item #7 on the Wiki to read this: ALL: rebuild the applications to use the new Berkeley DB version, you can set WITH_BDB_VER=5 or WITH_BDB_VER=6 in /etc/make.conf, or uniquename_WITH_BDB_VER=5 (where uniquename is what your port's UNIQUENAME is, for instance, bogofilter_WITH_BDB_VER=6). You can use the /usr/ports/Tools/scripts/BDB-upgrade-helper.sh script which will automatically upgrade your applications that depend on an older-to-be-removed Berkeley DB version to the new version, and then offer to delete the old Berkeley DB package(s). Note: there are a few ports that insist on using db4.8 for various reasons, so you may end up with most ports using db5 (or db6), and a few using db48. This is currently under discussion and being worked on. I hope this addresses your points sufficiently, if not, let me know what else you would propose to change. Best regards, Matthias -- Matthias Andree ___ 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
Re: HEADS UP: Berkeley DB 4...4.7 port removals/upgrades may require manual preparation
Am 25.08.2014 um 07:57 schrieb Scot Hetzel: [...] I was also thinking that we should make WITH_BDB_HIGHEST the default. It is used by VER+ when multiple versions of bdb are installed. That way we can remove this variable also. I filed two Bugzilla bugs, 193000 and 193002 to keep track of this, feel free to comment, and if there are new issues, feel free to file new bugs and mark them blocks: 193000, so we have 193000 as the master bug as a central collecting point. There's also discussion going on behind the scenes (with portmgr) about the db4.8 deprecation, we are currently unsure about the *coin (bitcoin and derivatives) and about twister. I have deprecated memcachedb because it has no users in the ports tree. If someone feels this is wrong, please speak up - either here, or through Bugzilla. ___ 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
Re: HEADS UP: Berkeley DB 4...4.7 port removals/upgrades may require manual preparation
Hi! If you have further questions, please ask them on the freebsd-ports@ mailing list, and feel free to Cc: me, but do make sure your mailer does not break threading, and do keep the Subject line intact. For devel/ice: If I run portupgrade, it says: cannot install: no eligible BerkeleyDB version. Requested: 6, incompatible: 40 41 42 43 44 46 47 48 6. Try: make debug-bdb while the makefile says: USE_BDB=5 INVALID_BDB_VER=40 41 42 43 44 46 47 48 6 and pkg info | grep ^db says: db48-4.8.30.0_2The Berkeley DB package, revision 4.8 db5-5.3.28_1 The Oracle Berkeley DB, revision 5.3 db6-6.1.19 The Oracle Berkeley DB, revision 6.1 Any idea on how to fix this ? -- p...@opsec.eu+49 171 3101372 6 years to go ! ___ 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
Re: HEADS UP: Berkeley DB 4...4.7 port removals/upgrades may require manual preparation
On 24 Aug 2014, at 12:28, Kurt Jaeger li...@opsec.eu wrote: Hi! If you have further questions, please ask them on the freebsd-ports@ mailing list, and feel free to Cc: me, but do make sure your mailer does not break threading, and do keep the Subject line intact. For devel/ice: If I run portupgrade, it says: cannot install: no eligible BerkeleyDB version. Requested: 6, incompatible: 40 41 42 43 44 46 47 48 6. Try: make debug-bdb while the makefile says: USE_BDB=5 INVALID_BDB_VER=40 41 42 43 44 46 47 48 6 and pkg info | grep ^db says: db48-4.8.30.0_2The Berkeley DB package, revision 4.8 db5-5.3.28_1 The Oracle Berkeley DB, revision 5.3 db6-6.1.19 The Oracle Berkeley DB, revision 6.1 Any idea on how to fix this ? Is this exclusive to portupgrade (does make install work)? Ice only supports bdb 5, so the Makefile should be correct. -- p...@opsec.eu+49 171 3101372 6 years to go ! ___ 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 ___ 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
Re: HEADS UP: Berkeley DB 4...4.7 port removals/upgrades may require manual preparation
Hi! For devel/ice: [...] Is this exclusive to portupgrade (does make install work)? Ice only supports bdb 5, so the Makefile should be correct. No, it's not exclusive. Same behaviour with # make === Ice-3.5.1_1 cannot install: no eligible BerkeleyDB version. Requested: 6, incompatible: 40 41 42 43 44 46 47 48 6. Try: make debug-bdb. *** Error code 1 Stop. make: stopped in /usr/ports/devel/ice -- p...@opsec.eu+49 171 3101372 6 years to go ! ___ 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
Re: HEADS UP: Berkeley DB 4...4.7 port removals/upgrades may require manual preparation
On 2014-08-24 13:11, Kurt Jaeger wrote:
Hi!
For devel/ice:
[...]
Is this exclusive to portupgrade (does make install work)? Ice
only supports bdb 5, so the Makefile should be correct.
No, it's not exclusive. Same behaviour with
# make
=== Ice-3.5.1_1 cannot install: no eligible BerkeleyDB version. Requested:
6, incompatible: 40 41 42 43 44 46 47 48 6. Try: make debug-bdb.
*** Error code 1
Stop.
make: stopped in /usr/ports/devel/ice
Hm, using USE_BDB=$numble looks wrong to me in devel/ice.
Can you test the following patch.
Index: Makefile
===
--- devel/ice/Makefile(revision 365910)
+++ devel/ice/Makefile(working copy)
@@ -27,7 +27,8 @@
.endif
USES= iconv gmake
-USE_BDB= 5
+USE_BDB= yes
+WANT_BDB_VER= 5
INVALID_BDB_VER= 40 41 42 43 44 46 47 48 6
USE_LDCONFIG= yes
BUILD_WRKSRC?= ${WRKSRC}/cpp
--
olli
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: HEADS UP: Berkeley DB 4...4.7 port removals/upgrades may require manual preparation
On Sun, 24 Aug 2014 13:39:06 +0200
olli hauer oha...@gmx.de wrote:
On 2014-08-24 13:11, Kurt Jaeger wrote:
Hi!
For devel/ice:
[...]
Is this exclusive to portupgrade (does make install work)? Ice
only supports bdb 5, so the Makefile should be correct.
No, it's not exclusive. Same behaviour with
# make
=== Ice-3.5.1_1 cannot install: no eligible BerkeleyDB version.
Requested: 6, incompatible: 40 41 42 43 44 46 47 48 6. Try: make
debug-bdb. *** Error code 1
Stop.
make: stopped in /usr/ports/devel/ice
Hm, using USE_BDB=$numble looks wrong to me in devel/ice.
Can you test the following patch.
Index: Makefile
===
--- devel/ice/Makefile(revision 365910)
+++ devel/ice/Makefile(working copy)
@@ -27,7 +27,8 @@
.endif
USES= iconv gmake
-USE_BDB= 5
+USE_BDB= yes
+WANT_BDB_VER= 5
INVALID_BDB_VER= 40 41 42 43 44 46 47 48 6
USE_LDCONFIG= yes
BUILD_WRKSRC?= ${WRKSRC}/cpp
@Kurt: Could you test and confirm? If this works, I'll commit the patch.
@Olli: Checking Mk/bsd.databasemk it seems like you're right. It's
quite amusing how this went unnoticed for so long, it has been in
there for eight years :)
r169835 | itetcu | 2006-08-06 18:53:56 +0200 (Sun, 06 Aug 2006) | 5
lines
convert to USE_BDB
PR: ports/101409
Submitted by: Stefan Ehmann (maintainer)
--
Michael Gmelin
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: HEADS UP: Berkeley DB 4...4.7 port removals/upgrades may require manual preparation
Hi!
Hm, using USE_BDB=$numble looks wrong to me in devel/ice.
Can you test the following patch.
Index: Makefile
===
--- devel/ice/Makefile(revision 365910)
+++ devel/ice/Makefile(working copy)
@@ -27,7 +27,8 @@
.endif
USES= iconv gmake
-USE_BDB= 5
+USE_BDB= yes
+WANT_BDB_VER= 5
INVALID_BDB_VER= 40 41 42 43 44 46 47 48 6
USE_LDCONFIG= yes
BUILD_WRKSRC?= ${WRKSRC}/cpp
@Kurt: Could you test and confirm? If this works, I'll commit the patch.
Yes, it builds.
--
p...@opsec.eu+49 171 3101372 6 years to go !
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: HEADS UP: Berkeley DB 4...4.7 port removals/upgrades may require manual preparation
On Sun, 24 Aug 2014 14:30:06 +0200
Kurt Jaeger li...@opsec.eu wrote:
Hi!
Hm, using USE_BDB=$numble looks wrong to me in devel/ice.
Can you test the following patch.
Index: Makefile
===
--- devel/ice/Makefile(revision 365910)
+++ devel/ice/Makefile(working copy)
@@ -27,7 +27,8 @@
.endif
USES= iconv gmake
-USE_BDB= 5
+USE_BDB= yes
+WANT_BDB_VER= 5
INVALID_BDB_VER= 40 41 42 43 44 46 47 48 6
USE_LDCONFIG= yes
BUILD_WRKSRC?= ${WRKSRC}/cpp
@Kurt: Could you test and confirm? If this works, I'll commit the
patch.
Yes, it builds.
I created a commit request
https://reviews.freebsd.org/D679
--
Michael Gmelin
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: HEADS UP: Berkeley DB 4...4.7 port removals/upgrades may require manual preparation
On 2014-08-24 14:37, Michael Gmelin wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2014 14:30:06 +0200
Kurt Jaeger li...@opsec.eu wrote:
Hi!
Hm, using USE_BDB=$numble looks wrong to me in devel/ice.
Can you test the following patch.
Index: Makefile
===
--- devel/ice/Makefile(revision 365910)
+++ devel/ice/Makefile(working copy)
@@ -27,7 +27,8 @@
.endif
USES= iconv gmake
-USE_BDB= 5
+USE_BDB= yes
+WANT_BDB_VER= 5
INVALID_BDB_VER= 40 41 42 43 44 46 47 48 6
USE_LDCONFIG= yes
BUILD_WRKSRC?= ${WRKSRC}/cpp
@Kurt: Could you test and confirm? If this works, I'll commit the
patch.
Yes, it builds.
I created a commit request
https://reviews.freebsd.org/D679
Kurt, or you can commit this even w.o. PR.
The patch does not break anything but allows the port to build as required.
I assume there are even more easter eggs in the tree, specially for USE_BDB.
--
olli
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: HEADS UP: Berkeley DB 4...4.7 port removals/upgrades may require manual preparation
On Sun, 24 Aug 2014 15:08:07 +0200
olli hauer oha...@gmx.de wrote:
On 2014-08-24 14:37, Michael Gmelin wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2014 14:30:06 +0200
Kurt Jaeger li...@opsec.eu wrote:
Hi!
Hm, using USE_BDB=$numble looks wrong to me in devel/ice.
Can you test the following patch.
Index: Makefile
===
--- devel/ice/Makefile(revision 365910)
+++ devel/ice/Makefile(working copy)
@@ -27,7 +27,8 @@
.endif
USES= iconv gmake
-USE_BDB= 5
+USE_BDB= yes
+WANT_BDB_VER= 5
INVALID_BDB_VER= 40 41 42 43 44 46 47 48 6
USE_LDCONFIG= yes
BUILD_WRKSRC?= ${WRKSRC}/cpp
@Kurt: Could you test and confirm? If this works, I'll commit the
patch.
Yes, it builds.
I created a commit request
https://reviews.freebsd.org/D679
Kurt, or you can commit this even w.o. PR.
The patch does not break anything but allows the port to build as
required. I assume there are even more easter eggs in the tree,
specially for USE_BDB.
I already committed it.
--
Michael Gmelin
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: HEADS UP: Berkeley DB 4...4.7 port removals/upgrades may require manual preparation
On Sun, 24 Aug 2014 15:08:07 +0200
olli hauer oha...@gmx.de wrote:
On 2014-08-24 14:37, Michael Gmelin wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2014 14:30:06 +0200
Kurt Jaeger li...@opsec.eu wrote:
Hi!
Hm, using USE_BDB=$numble looks wrong to me in devel/ice.
Can you test the following patch.
Index: Makefile
===
--- devel/ice/Makefile(revision 365910)
+++ devel/ice/Makefile(working copy)
@@ -27,7 +27,8 @@
.endif
USES= iconv gmake
-USE_BDB= 5
+USE_BDB= yes
+WANT_BDB_VER= 5
INVALID_BDB_VER= 40 41 42 43 44 46 47 48 6
USE_LDCONFIG= yes
BUILD_WRKSRC?= ${WRKSRC}/cpp
@Kurt: Could you test and confirm? If this works, I'll commit the
patch.
Yes, it builds.
I created a commit request
https://reviews.freebsd.org/D679
Kurt, or you can commit this even w.o. PR.
The patch does not break anything but allows the port to build as
required. I assume there are even more easter eggs in the tree,
specially for USE_BDB.
Committed it (this time from the correct email account)
--
Michael Gmelin
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: HEADS UP: Berkeley DB 4...4.7 port removals/upgrades may require manual preparation
On Sun, 24 Aug 2014 15:08:07 +0200
olli hauer oha...@gmx.de wrote:
On 2014-08-24 14:37, Michael Gmelin wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2014 14:30:06 +0200
Kurt Jaeger li...@opsec.eu wrote:
Hi!
Hm, using USE_BDB=$numble looks wrong to me in devel/ice.
Can you test the following patch.
Index: Makefile
===
--- devel/ice/Makefile(revision 365910)
+++ devel/ice/Makefile(working copy)
@@ -27,7 +27,8 @@
.endif
USES= iconv gmake
-USE_BDB= 5
+USE_BDB= yes
+WANT_BDB_VER= 5
INVALID_BDB_VER= 40 41 42 43 44 46 47 48 6
USE_LDCONFIG= yes
BUILD_WRKSRC?= ${WRKSRC}/cpp
@Kurt: Could you test and confirm? If this works, I'll commit the
patch.
Yes, it builds.
I created a commit request
https://reviews.freebsd.org/D679
Kurt, or you can commit this even w.o. PR.
The patch does not break anything but allows the port to build as
required. I assume there are even more easter eggs in the tree,
specially for USE_BDB.
A short grep shows that the following ports are affected, the question
is if simply converting them to
USE_BDB=yes
WANT_BDB_VER= prior value of USE_BDB
is the right thing to do.
archivers/rpm4/Makefile
chinese/xsim/Makefile
comms/trustedqsl/Makefile
comms/xastir/Makefile
databases/dbtool/Makefile
databases/evolution-data-server/Makefile
databases/fortytwo-bdb/Makefile
databases/libgda5/Makefile
databases/memcachedb/Makefile
databases/memcacheq/Makefile
databases/p5-BDB/Makefile
databases/p5-BerkeleyDB/Makefile
databases/py-bsddb/Makefile
databases/py-bsddb3/Makefile
databases/rdfdb/Makefile
devel/apr1/Makefile
devel/libqxt/Makefile
dns/dnshistory/Makefile
editors/nvi-devel/Makefile
graphics/fortytwo/Makefile
japanese/mutt-devel/Makefile
mail/avenger/Makefile
mail/bogofilter/Makefile
mail/dk-milter/Makefile
mail/drac/Makefile
mail/evolution-exchange/Makefile
mail/greyfix/Makefile
mail/isync/Makefile
mail/meta1/Makefile
mail/mutt/Makefile
mail/opendkim/Makefile
mail/spamprobe/Makefile
net-p2p/cdonkey/Makefile
net/freeswitch-core-devel/Makefile
net/netatalk/Makefile
net/netatalk3/Makefile
net/openldap24-server/Makefile
news/inn/Makefile
science/gramps/Makefile
security/pks/Makefile
security/sks/Makefile
sysutils/apt/Makefile
sysutils/cfengine22/Makefile
sysutils/cfengine32/Makefile
www/oops/Makefile
--
Michael Gmelin
___
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
Re: HEADS UP: Berkeley DB 4...4.7 port removals/upgrades may require manual preparation
On Sun, 24 Aug 2014 15:36:18 +0200
Michael Gmelin gre...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2014 15:08:07 +0200
olli hauer oha...@gmx.de wrote:
On 2014-08-24 14:37, Michael Gmelin wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2014 14:30:06 +0200
Kurt Jaeger li...@opsec.eu wrote:
Hi!
Hm, using USE_BDB=$numble looks wrong to me in devel/ice.
Can you test the following patch.
Index: Makefile
===
--- devel/ice/Makefile(revision 365910)
+++ devel/ice/Makefile(working copy)
@@ -27,7 +27,8 @@
.endif
USES= iconv gmake
-USE_BDB= 5
+USE_BDB= yes
+WANT_BDB_VER= 5
INVALID_BDB_VER= 40 41 42 43 44 46 47 48 6
USE_LDCONFIG= yes
BUILD_WRKSRC?= ${WRKSRC}/cpp
@Kurt: Could you test and confirm? If this works, I'll commit
the patch.
Yes, it builds.
I created a commit request
https://reviews.freebsd.org/D679
Kurt, or you can commit this even w.o. PR.
The patch does not break anything but allows the port to build as
required. I assume there are even more easter eggs in the tree,
specially for USE_BDB.
@Kurt: I assume you have WITH_BDB_VER= 6 in your make.conf?
A short grep shows that the following ports are affected, the question
is if simply converting them to
USE_BDB= yes
WANT_BDB_VER= prior value of USE_BDB
is the right thing to do.
To answer my own question: Probably not, as it seems legal to use
USE_BDB= version, which *should* (or at least used to) have the same
effect as
USE_BDB= yes
WITH_BDB_VER= version
I'm a bit curious what the correct use of INVALID_BDB_VER is, since it
seems incompatible with using WITH_BDB_VER in make.conf, so in the end
a port always has to specify WANT_BDB_VER if you want to ensure it
builds correctly.
Also, using INVALID_BDB_VER in devel/ice seems redundant now:
USE_BDB= yes
WANT_BDB_VER= 5
INVALID_BDB_VER= 40 41 42 43 44 46 47 48 6
I assume that
USE_BDB= yes
WANT_BDB_VER= 5
will accomplish the same.
- Michael
--
Michael Gmelin
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: HEADS UP: Berkeley DB 4...4.7 port removals/upgrades may require manual preparation
Hi!
Hm, using USE_BDB=$numble looks wrong to me in devel/ice.
[...]
USES= iconv gmake
-USE_BDB= 5
+USE_BDB= yes
+WANT_BDB_VER= 5
INVALID_BDB_VER= 40 41 42 43 44 46 47 48 6
USE_LDCONFIG= yes
BUILD_WRKSRC?= ${WRKSRC}/cpp
Kurt, or you can commit this even w.o. PR.
Sorry, was offline since last mail...
The patch does not break anything but allows the port to build as
required. I assume there are even more easter eggs in the tree,
specially for USE_BDB.
@Kurt: I assume you have WITH_BDB_VER= 6 in your make.conf?
Correct.
I'm a bit curious what the correct use of INVALID_BDB_VER is, since it
seems incompatible with using WITH_BDB_VER in make.conf, so in the end
a port always has to specify WANT_BDB_VER if you want to ensure it
builds correctly.
Also, using INVALID_BDB_VER in devel/ice seems redundant now:
USE_BDB= yes
WANT_BDB_VER= 5
INVALID_BDB_VER= 40 41 42 43 44 46 47 48 6
I assume that
USE_BDB= yes
WANT_BDB_VER= 5
will accomplish the same.
Many alternatives -- which one is the right one ?
--
p...@opsec.eu+49 171 3101372 6 years to go !
___
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
Re: HEADS UP: Berkeley DB 4...4.7 port removals/upgrades may require manual preparation
On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 7:20 AM, Michael Gmelin gre...@freebsd.org wrote: @Olli: Checking Mk/bsd.databasemk it seems like you're right. It's quite amusing how this went unnoticed for so long, it has been in there for eight years :) As the original author of the USE_BDB code, the USE_BDB=5 had worked in the past. As it is supposed to mean that this port only uses that version of BDB. The code was changed on Aug 21 (r365599) and the author of the new code might have forgot to test this case. -- DISCLAIMER: No electrons were maimed while sending this message. Only slightly bruised. ___ 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
Re: HEADS UP: Berkeley DB 4...4.7 port removals/upgrades may require manual preparation
On Sun, 24 Aug 2014 11:59:37 -0500 Scot Hetzel swhet...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 7:20 AM, Michael Gmelin gre...@freebsd.org wrote: @Olli: Checking Mk/bsd.databasemk it seems like you're right. It's quite amusing how this went unnoticed for so long, it has been in there for eight years :) As the original author of the USE_BDB code, the USE_BDB=5 had worked in the past. As it is supposed to mean that this port only uses that version of BDB. The code was changed on Aug 21 (r365599) and the author of the new code might have forgot to test this case. Not sure if you read the rest of the thread, but this is still working as intended (I tested using both the old and new version). The issue is, that USE_BDB=version means USE_BDB=yes, WITH_BDB_VER=version, but Kurt has WITH_BDB_VER=6 in make.conf, which overrides this version number and version =6 is invalid for devel/ice. So basically it works as designed, Kurt wanted a specific version of bdb, which doesn't work for devel/ice. The fix was to add WANT_BDB_VER= 5 in devel/ice, which I guess is ok, since this is the only version it really works with (and I guess I could remove the INVALID directive now, since WANT means really *want*). My question is, what the point of INVALID_BDB_VER really is in this case, it seems a bit pointless to me given the trouble it caused Kurt and how we resolved this. Having a fully specified list of supported versions in WANT_BDB_VER seems better in this case (assuming WANT supports listing multiple versions). -- Michael Gmelin ___ 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
Re: HEADS UP: Berkeley DB 4...4.7 port removals/upgrades may require manual preparation
Hi! There is the possible mechanism of WITH_BDB_VER=6 in /etc/make.conf. Is there a way to also add some DEFAULT_VERSIONS= bdb=6 like syntax in /usr/ports/Mk/bsd.default-versions.mk to keep the mechanism similar to other default versions ? -- p...@opsec.eu+49 171 3101372 6 years to go ! ___ 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
Re: HEADS UP: Berkeley DB 4...4.7 port removals/upgrades may require manual preparation
On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 12:16 PM, Michael Gmelin gre...@freebsd.org wrote: On Sun, 24 Aug 2014 11:59:37 -0500 Scot Hetzel swhet...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 7:20 AM, Michael Gmelin gre...@freebsd.org wrote: @Olli: Checking Mk/bsd.databasemk it seems like you're right. It's quite amusing how this went unnoticed for so long, it has been in there for eight years :) As the original author of the USE_BDB code, the USE_BDB=5 had worked in the past. As it is supposed to mean that this port only uses that version of BDB. The code was changed on Aug 21 (r365599) and the author of the new code might have forgot to test this case. Not sure if you read the rest of the thread, but this is still working as intended (I tested using both the old and new version). The issue is, that USE_BDB=version means USE_BDB=yes, WITH_BDB_VER=version, but Kurt has WITH_BDB_VER=6 in make.conf, which overrides this version number and version =6 is invalid for devel/ice. So basically it works as designed, Kurt wanted a specific version of bdb, which doesn't work for devel/ice. The fix was to add WANT_BDB_VER= 5 in devel/ice, which I guess is ok, since this is the only version it really works with (and I guess I could remove the INVALID directive now, since WANT means really *want*). Hmm, I thought I had it implemented this way at one time. Any way. What we should be doing with the WITH_BDB_VER is not overriding the USE_BDB value. Instead we should see if it is a VALID version to use for this port, if it is not, then use the USE_BDB value. So basically the code should be doing the following: USE_BDB=yes - use the default version (48+) or the installed version if higher USE_BDB=yes, WITH_BDB_VER=6 - use version 6 USE_BDB=5 - should mean the same as USE_BDB=yes, WANT_BDB_VER=5 - shouldn't be able to override by setting WITH_BDB_VER=6 - this would also allow the removal of the WANT_BDB_VER variable. - no error should be generated when WITH_BDB_VER is set to an invalid version USE_BDB=48 6 - use (either 48 or 6) or the installed version that matches one of these versions - no error should be generated when WITH_BDB_VER is set to an invalid version USE_BDB=5+, WITH_BDB_VER=48 - use version 5+ or the installed version if higher - shouldn't allow downgrade to a lower unsupported version by setting the WITH_BDB_VER -- should we still display an error in this case or just install the port with bdb 5+? If we make the above changes to the code, then INVALID_BDB_VER and WANT_BDB_VER could disappear. My question is, what the point of INVALID_BDB_VER really is in this case, it seems a bit pointless to me given the trouble it caused Kurt and how we resolved this. Having a fully specified list of supported versions in WANT_BDB_VER seems better in this case (assuming WANT supports listing multiple versions). At the time I had implemented the code, INVALID_BDB_VER was meant to poke holes in the VER+: USE_BDB=2+ INVALID_BDB_VER=3 So the port would be able to use version 2 and 40+, and not 3. Probably should have just implanted it as: USE_BDB=2 40+ and skipped the INVALID_BDB_VER entirely. I was also thinking that we should make WITH_BDB_HIGHEST the default. It is used by VER+ when multiple versions of bdb are installed. That way we can remove this variable also. -- DISCLAIMER: No electrons were maimed while sending this message. Only slightly bruised. ___ 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
Re: HEADS UP: Berkeley DB 4...4.7 port removals/upgrades may require manual preparation
On 2014-Aug-21 20:56:47 +0200, Matthias Andree mand...@freebsd.org wrote: The time has now come to remove these db4* ports, Berkeley DB versions 4.0 to 4.7, inclusively. Most of their dependent ports can cope with upgrades to db48, db5, or db6, most of the others could be patched to work. ... I have created a Wiki page that contains instructions, and points to SleepyCat's or Oracle's upgrading documentation, at https://wiki.freebsd.org/Ports/BerkeleyDBCleanup. This assumes that I know where and how BDB is being used. I've discovered that I have db41 installed on a couple of systems - it's required by textproc/redland, which in turn is required by editors/libreoffice. Whilst I can avoid using libreoffice whilst I upgrade, I have no idea how it uses BDB or where the database files might be. I suspect this scenario is true for the majority of people who have BDB installed. When, among the upgrade steps on the WIki, you have reached the point where it is safe to upgrade the Berkeley DB and applications, there is a helper script in Tools/scripts/BDB-upgrade-helper.sh uses portmaster or portupgrade to rebuild the applications to use a newer Berkeley DB, and then offer to delete the old Berkeley DB ports. Partial relative paths aren't especially helpful. This should either be an absolute path or specify a cwd (presumably /usr/ports in this case). And, for reasons I don't understand, when I run BDB-upgrade-helper.sh, portmaster wants to install both db48 and db5. -- Peter Jeremy pgpvr08lPih3L.pgp Description: PGP signature
