From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Tue May 29 08:42:45 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 240B4106566B; Tue, 29 May 2012 08:42:45 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from des@des.no) Received: from smtp.des.no (smtp.des.no [194.63.250.102]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D459E8FC0A; Tue, 29 May 2012 08:42:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ds4.des.no (smtp.des.no [194.63.250.102]) by smtp.des.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id B00DE632D; Tue, 29 May 2012 08:42:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ds4.des.no (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 773A68E86; Tue, 29 May 2012 10:42:43 +0200 (CEST) From: =?utf-8?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=C3=B8rgrav?= To: Doug Barton References: <20120526202432.GA265@DataIX.net> <20120528010146.GA40399@DataIX.net> <86r4u4b4u4.fsf@ds4.des.no> <20120528175913.GC10333@DataIX.net> <4FC45234.90307@FreeBSD.org> <86obp7780r.fsf@ds4.des.no> <4FC48153.9070204@FreeBSD.org> Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 10:42:43 +0200 In-Reply-To: <4FC48153.9070204@FreeBSD.org> (Doug Barton's message of "Tue, 29 May 2012 00:57:07 -0700") Message-ID: <86bol774zg.fsf@ds4.des.no> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.3 (berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: stable@freebsd.org, ed@freebsd.org, rdivacky@freebsd.org, miwi@freebsd.org Subject: Re: /usr/bin/unzip not being installed on 8.3-STABLE X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 08:42:45 -0000 Doug Barton writes: > I saw your followup, and I think you're probably right ... the problem > is that there are some things in the ports tree that are conditional on > OSVERSION, so the fact that it works on HEAD and 9 doesn't necessarily > mean that it will work in 8. Well, actually, ports will *never* use the base system unzip: .if defined(USE_ZIP) EXTRACT_DEPENDS+=3D ${LOCALBASE}/bin/unzip:${PORTSDIR}/archivers/unzip .endif [...] UNZIP_CMD?=3D ${LOCALBASE}/bin/unzip I thought they did, but I guess I must have forgotten to submit the patch I have in my tree: --- bsd.commands.mk 23 May 2012 08:17:48 -0000 1.11 +++ bsd.commands.mk 25 May 2012 08:32:36 -0000 @@ -89,7 +89,11 @@ UMOUNT?=3D /sbin/umount UNAME?=3D /usr/bin/uname UNMAKESELF_CMD?=3D ${LOCALBASE}/bin/unmakeself +.if exists(/usr/bin/unzip) +UNZIP_CMD?=3D /usr/bin/unzip +.else UNZIP_CMD?=3D ${LOCALBASE}/bin/unzip +.endif WHICH?=3D /usr/bin/which XARGS?=3D /usr/bin/xargs XMKMF?=3D ${LOCALBASE}/bin/xmkmf -a which causes the ports tree to *use* the base unzip but does not remove the dependency on the port; for that, you need something like this: --- bsd.port.mk 24 May 2012 07:11:40 -0000 1.711 +++ bsd.port.mk 29 May 2012 08:38:43 -0000 @@ -1639,7 +1639,7 @@ =20 .if defined(PATCHFILES) .if ${PATCHFILES:M*.zip}x !=3D x -PATCH_DEPENDS+=3D ${LOCALBASE}/bin/unzip:${PORTSDIR}/archivers/unzip +PATCH_DEPENDS+=3D unzip:${PORTSDIR}/archivers/unzip .endif .endif =20 @@ -1678,7 +1678,7 @@ .endif =20 .if defined(USE_ZIP) -EXTRACT_DEPENDS+=3D ${LOCALBASE}/bin/unzip:${PORTSDIR}/archivers/unzip +EXTRACT_DEPENDS+=3D unzip:${PORTSDIR}/archivers/unzip .endif .if defined(USE_XZ) && ( (${OSVERSION} >=3D 900000 && ${OSVERSION} < 90001= 2) || ${OSVERSION} < 800505 ) EXTRACT_DEPENDS+=3D ${LOCALBASE}/bin/xz:${PORTSDIR}/archivers/xz It is probably safe to *always* use the base system unzip (i.e. not set {EXTRACT,PATCH}_DEPENDS at all) on 9.0 and newer, but that would definitely require an exp run. DES --=20 Dag-Erling Sm=C3=B8rgrav - des@des.no