From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Apr 10 00:26:23 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04A52106566B for ; Tue, 10 Apr 2012 00:26:23 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-ports@herveybayaustralia.com.au) Received: from mail.unitedinsong.com.au (mail.unitedinsong.com.au [150.101.178.33]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A53CD8FC14 for ; Tue, 10 Apr 2012 00:26:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from laptop1.herveybayaustralia.com.au (laptop1.herveybayaustralia.com.au [192.168.0.182]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.unitedinsong.com.au (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0EDE25C22 for ; Tue, 10 Apr 2012 10:39:53 +1000 (EST) Message-ID: <4F837E27.8070503@herveybayaustralia.com.au> Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 10:26:15 +1000 From: Da Rock User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20111109 Thunderbird/7.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org References: <4F7E498E.7070007@herveybayaustralia.com.au> <4F804679.2040803@herveybayaustralia.com.au> <4F80D4F9.9020207@herveybayaustralia.com.au> <4F836A65.7080402@herveybayaustralia.com.au> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: FreeBSD Port: samba34-3.4.14 X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 00:26:23 -0000 On 04/10/12 09:12, Chuck Swiger wrote: > Hi-- > > On Apr 9, 2012, at 4:01 PM, Da Rock wrote: >> To drag this up again, I was thinking about the number of cases I've found like this recently, and I was considering what the most appropriate action to take here. This one is obviously controversial, and I didn't have the time to do more or test further, but for future reference I'd like some clarification. >> >> I'd say a PR is not really appropriate as a response to an issue such as this (unless the maintainer offers no response at all), but should I create a patch to assist the maintainer? Or is that over doing it? >> >> If I were to create a patch, what is the correct (usable) procedure? And for something like this it would be an adjustment to BUILD_DEPENDS, correct? > If you think there is a missing dependency, then doing send-pr with the fix is a reasonable procedure. I was only thinking the maintainer might want to know and fix and test themselves before commit. I know I would as a maintainer. > However, you might first want to look into what was different in your case from pointyhat, since the builds of samba-3.x worked fine: > > http://pointyhat.freebsd.org/errorlogs/amd64-9-latest-logs/samba34-3.4.14.log > http://pointyhat.freebsd.org/errorlogs/amd64-9-latest-logs/samba35-3.5.11.log > http://pointyhat.freebsd.org/errorlogs/amd64-9-latest-logs/samba36-3.6.3.log Hmmm. You're right. I can narrow it down to the SWAT or AIO option (most likely given the obvious network connection there), but it could be ADS, ACL, or FAM; but I doubt that very much. You have me intrigued now, I have to look into it to know :) So what should the patch look like? Am I correct in my understanding of the BUILD_DEPENDS, or have I chased a goose on that one?