From owner-freebsd-gecko@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Feb 27 23:21:29 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: gecko@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EF97106566C; Mon, 27 Feb 2012 23:21:29 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mi+thun@aldan.algebra.com) Received: from smtp02.lnh.mail.rcn.net (smtp02.lnh.mail.rcn.net [207.172.157.102]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 883E88FC13; Mon, 27 Feb 2012 23:21:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mr17.lnh.mail.rcn.net ([207.172.157.37]) by smtp02.lnh.mail.rcn.net with ESMTP; 27 Feb 2012 17:52:52 -0500 Received: from smtp04.lnh.mail.rcn.net (smtp04.lnh.mail.rcn.net [207.172.157.104]) by mr17.lnh.mail.rcn.net (MOS 4.3.4-GA) with ESMTP id BJB09852; Mon, 27 Feb 2012 17:52:51 -0500 X-Auth-ID: anat Received: from 209-6-63-29.c3-0.sbo-ubr1.sbo.ma.cable.rcn.com (HELO utka.zajac) ([209.6.63.29]) by smtp04.lnh.mail.rcn.net with ESMTP; 27 Feb 2012 17:52:51 -0500 Message-ID: <4F4C0942.2000002@aldan.algebra.com> Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 17:52:50 -0500 From: "Mikhail T." User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD i386; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20111013 Thunderbird/7.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Florian Smeets References: <201202261434.q1QEYMbN006147@narawntapu.narawntapu> <4F4C0164.9090005@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <4F4C0164.9090005@FreeBSD.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: gecko@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ca_root_nss fails to install if /etc/ssl/cert.pem alredy exists X-BeenThere: freebsd-gecko@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Gecko Rendering Engine issues List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 23:21:29 -0000 On 27.02.2012 17:19, Florian Smeets wrote: > maybe I'm missing something but this should not happen because of > > %%ETCSYMLINK%%@cwd / > %%ETCSYMLINK%%etc/ssl/cert.pem Not sure... I had the update fail for me because the link was still there... Maybe, it is because I did not have the ETCSYMLINK option on, when I installed the earlier version of the package -- and created the symlink manually afterwards. Whatever the reason the entry exists at install time, the port should not be failing to register itself (after the complete installation) because of it. > On deinstall the symlink should be removed. And that seems to work here. > > Also if we consider the patch shouldn't it be || instead of&& ? Oh, yes, of course. Thanks! Yours, -mi