From owner-freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jan 3 19:42:04 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports-bugs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [8.8.178.115]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FDB77B1 for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2013 19:42:04 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ler@lerctr.org) Received: from thebighonker.lerctr.org (lrosenman-1-pt.tunnel.tserv8.dal1.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f0e:3ad::2]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72314E34 for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2013 19:42:04 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lerctr.org; s=lerami; h=Message-ID:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=FVmKccIEvAur4bLs+UXQrZtDX7EJS624xMydR0Go5QE=; b=VrrVJHYidktRT8FKb1o8VcE8YEUUj+4ri1J1s8rX7kqmKjNYxoqeHQZaS0wC8g5HuYuSTRo21u30EKsBSBNZSA4Ph07CYz6t6abp3GNarVoL6R3GsywNbBOePhjPvziq9W1fOYXOBji42/rhnuRn6VfA4y29VG7a2Wn5Vs2avwI=; Received: from localhost.lerctr.org ([127.0.0.1]:48813 helo=webmail.lerctr.org) by thebighonker.lerctr.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.80.1 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Tqqfv-000JFG-GV; Thu, 03 Jan 2013 13:42:00 -0600 Received: from [32.97.110.60] by webmail.lerctr.org with HTTP (HTTP/1.1 POST); Thu, 03 Jan 2013 13:41:59 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2013 13:41:59 -0600 From: Larry Rosenman To: Ruslan Makhmatkhanov Subject: Re: ports/172600: [PKGNG]sysutils/bacula-client & sysutils/bacula-server conflict and shouldn't In-Reply-To: <50E5C7AC.9000802@yandex.ru> References: <201301031245.r03Cj8fm045924@freefall.freebsd.org> <50E5AD5D.8020402@yandex.ru> <50E5C7AC.9000802@yandex.ru> Message-ID: <2e7805e18374f54e6c2df34d932b855e@webmail.lerctr.org> X-Sender: ler@lerctr.org User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/0.8.4 X-Spam-Score: -2.9 (--) X-LERCTR-Spam-Score: -2.9 (--) X-Spam-Report: SpamScore (-2.9/5.0) ALL_TRUSTED=-1, BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01 X-LERCTR-Spam-Report: SpamScore (-2.9/5.0) ALL_TRUSTED=-1, BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01 Cc: freebsd-ports-bugs@freebsd.org, Dan Langille X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Ports bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2013 19:42:04 -0000 On 2013-01-03 12:02, Ruslan Makhmatkhanov wrote: > Dan Langille wrote on 03.01.2013 20:37: >> On 2013-01-03 11:10, Ruslan Makhmatkhanov wrote: >>> Thank you for quick reply! >>> >>> Larry Rosenman wrote on 03.01.2013 19:52: >>>> ===> Running ldconfig >>>> /sbin/ldconfig -m /usr/local/lib >>>> ===> Registering installation for bacula-client-5.2.12 >>>> Installing bacula-client-5.2.12...pkg: bacula-client-5.2.12 >>>> conflicts >>>> with bacula-server-5.2.12 (installs files into the same place). >>>> Problematic file: /usr/local/man/man8/bacula-fd.8.gz >>> >>> It's quite odd, because this file is installed only if >>> WITH_CLIENT_ONLY is enabled. Can't it be some pkg cached result or >>> something? Would you please try to set PORTREVISION to 1 in >>> bacula-server/Makefile and try again? If this helps, >> >> Larry: FYI: bacula-server now installs bacula-client as a >> LIB_DEPENDS >> >> Thus, after installing bacula-server, bacula-client should already >> be >> installed. >> >> Does that help? > > Maybe they need to be deinstalled first? Deinstall/re-install (and making sure all the /usr/local/lib/libbac* stuff is deleted, etc) seems to work. /usr/local/etc/rc.d/bacula-sd has an extraneous rcvar=`set_rcvar` line in it that should be nuked. Thanks guys! > >> Ahh, yes, we did not bump the PORTREVISION. I think we should have. >> Let >> me know >> if a bump helps. >> >>>> Yes, it still seems to be broken, there is a pending PR to fix >>>> it, but >>>> AFAIK it has NOT been committed yet. >>> >>> This one, that I closed today? >>> http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=170773 >> >> No, this PR committed in Dec: >> >> http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/167700 >> >>> I believe it's no more applicable to current port state and >>> something >>> similar is done in current bacula ports anyway. >> >> I do not understand the above statement. > > Forget it :). I mean something like "this particular patch (from pr I > mentioned) will not apply against current ports tree". And the second > part - the current bacula ports should be ok by themselves, and no > modification like in that pr is needed anymore. But it's strange that > it still failing with pkgng.