From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Wed May 14 07:55:16 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0689F6EB for ; Wed, 14 May 2014 07:55:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from shepard.synsport.net (mail.synsport.com [208.69.230.148]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D3732251B for ; Wed, 14 May 2014 07:55:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.0.20] (unknown [130.255.19.191]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by shepard.synsport.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CC6843B96 for ; Wed, 14 May 2014 02:54:53 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <5373213C.7040102@marino.st> Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 09:54:36 +0200 From: John Marino Reply-To: marino@freebsd.org User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: r353029 broke net-mgmt/zabbix2*-server options References: In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 07:55:16 -0000 On 5/14/2014 09:42, Pavel Timofeev wrote: > Hi! > After this commit to regular ports tree both zabbix (2.0 and 2.2) > ports was messed. > For example: > ====> Options available for the single DB: you have to select exactly > one of them > MYSQL=on: MySQL database support > PGSQL=off: PostgreSQL database support > SQLITE=off: SQLite database support > ORACLE=off: Oracle database support > ODBC=off: Support for database checks via ODBC > ===> Use 'make config' to modify these settings > > ODBC shouldn't be in DB section. See in 2014Q2 - that's how it has to > look. Please, fix it I am somebody completely unfamiliar with this port. So I am curious why "ODBC shouldn't be in DB section". ODBC is a database driver, so why shouldn't it be in the database section? You state it needs to be a certain way, but the justification is that it was that way before rather than stating the real reason for those of us that aren't familiar with this particular port. Thanks, John