From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG  Sun Aug 24 16:08:57 2014
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG>
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 B99E02E2;
 Sun, 24 Aug 2014 16:08:57 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from home.opsec.eu (home.opsec.eu [IPv6:2001:14f8:200::1])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
 (Client did not present a certificate)
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 700043A98;
 Sun, 24 Aug 2014 16:08:57 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pi by home.opsec.eu with local (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD))
 (envelope-from <lists@opsec.eu>)
 id 1XLaLf-000NLd-4q; Sun, 24 Aug 2014 18:08:55 +0200
Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2014 18:08:55 +0200
From: Kurt Jaeger <lists@opsec.eu>
To: Michael Gmelin <grembo@freebsd.org>
Subject: Re: HEADS UP: Berkeley DB 4...4.7 port removals/upgrades may require
 manual preparation
Message-ID: <20140824160855.GF9400@home.opsec.eu>
References: <20140824102826.GB9400@home.opsec.eu>
 <EB2B24ED-1D62-467B-8870-EEACA8A72281@freebsd.org>
 <20140824111149.GD9400@home.opsec.eu> <53F9CEDA.4070309@gmx.de>
 <20140824142050.5e336477@bsd64.grem.de>
 <20140824123006.GE9400@home.opsec.eu>
 <20140824143728.0d5c435b@bsd64.grem.de> <53F9E3B7.10009@gmx.de>
 <20140824153618.32060060@bsd64.grem.de>
 <20140824164434.1bfddfcb@bsd64.grem.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20140824164434.1bfddfcb@bsd64.grem.de>
Cc: olli hauer <ohauer@gmx.de>, Matthias Andree <mandree@FreeBSD.org>,
 ports-list freebsd <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>
X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD <freebsd-ports.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-ports>,
 <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
 <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2014 16:08:57 -0000

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 ?

-- 
pi@opsec.eu            +49 171 3101372                         6 years to go !