From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jul 16 22:12:40 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A554106564A for ; Sat, 16 Jul 2011 22:12:40 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bf1783@googlemail.com) Received: from mail-pv0-f182.google.com (mail-pv0-f182.google.com [74.125.83.182]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 795408FC0A for ; Sat, 16 Jul 2011 22:12:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: by pvg11 with SMTP id 11so2744760pvg.13 for ; Sat, 16 Jul 2011 15:12:40 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:reply-to:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=YtBJi9NPBRjnYFzfWul1lomcQHuD08MbI/gDbTPRRUk=; b=RPxG59+GP6vym38WEXUdM9fOPp0279pPrGGhUVLYjc86Ra0i3QaMcHdG4qsXtVeu8K 73d9BL+vcrBiTXSh0rdK08jCXos7XI+n4QDM3gSgLaU8ueac7QxwdUjX0DczR2KsJ9j4 0oXolBy3sEDSg+CqHKyJPq+ddnHaA621DYTIA= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.68.13.101 with SMTP id g5mr5572281pbc.238.1310854359907; Sat, 16 Jul 2011 15:12:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.68.40.72 with HTTP; Sat, 16 Jul 2011 15:12:39 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2011 18:12:39 -0400 Message-ID: From: "b. f." To: David Arendt , freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: Subject: Re: options used to compile packages X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: bf1783@gmail.com List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2011 22:12:40 -0000 > well I don't actually now which package it was, but I compiled gdm (so > it should be one of it's dependencies). A compilation resulted in a non > working gdm (something with pam support not found on execution). Upon > installing gdm and is dependencies from packages, everything worked > correctly. Therefore I thought there might be other default options. I > am sorry that I cannot be more precise, but I tried it 2 months ago, so > I do not remember exactly. I think I will try it again from scratch with > latest ports tree and give you more precise information. In addition to the obvious possibilities that your test was faulty, or that you somehow polluted your build environment, It is also possible that: -at least one of your ports was a different version than used in the default packages, and had a bug; -there was a transient build error; or -you were using a different version of FreeBSD than that used to build the default packages that you used, and there is a problem with one of the ports on that version of FreeBSD. b.