From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jul 17 09:13:05 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0F3816A4CE for ; Sat, 17 Jul 2004 09:13:05 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mail.broadpark.no (mail.broadpark.no [217.13.4.2]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6877043D1D for ; Sat, 17 Jul 2004 09:13:05 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from torfinn.ingolfsen@broadpark.no) Received: from kg-work.kg4.no (68.80-202-174.nextgentel.com [80.202.174.68]) by mail.broadpark.no (Postfix) with SMTP id 794063D91 for ; Sat, 17 Jul 2004 11:13:35 +0200 (MEST) Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2004 11:12:59 +0200 From: Torfinn Ingolfsen To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Message-Id: <20040717111259.008edbc4.torfinn.ingolfsen@broadpark.no> In-Reply-To: <20040109134147.64e92ac9.torfinn.ingolfsen@broadpark.no> References: <20040109134147.64e92ac9.torfinn.ingolfsen@broadpark.no> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.12 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-portbld-freebsd5.2.1) X-Face: "t9w2,-X@O^I`jVW\sonI3.,36KBLZE*AL[y9lL[PyFD*r_S:dIL9c[8Y>V42R0"!"yb_zN,f#%.[PYYNq;m"_0v;~rUM2Yy!zmkh)3&U|u!=T(zyv,MHJv"nDH>OJ`t(@mil461d_B'Uo|'nMwlKe0Mv=kvV?Nh@>Hb<3s_z2jYgZhPb@?Wi^x1a~Hplz1.zH Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: Problems with spambayes-1.0.a.6 under -stable? X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2004 09:13:05 -0000 On Fri, 9 Jan 2004 13:41:47 +0100 Torfinn Ingolfsen wrote: > I installed py23-spambayes-1.0.a.6 from ports, and the installation > went without problems. > When I tried to start sb_server.py ('sb_server.py -b' to get up the > configuration page), it complained that it did not have any database > module available. > I fixed that by installing the port py23-bsddb (currently at version > 2.3.3_1). Is this the correct fix? I didn't get any replies to this, and the error is still there in version 1.0.rc.1 of the port. I have filed a PR for this. -- Torfinn Ingolfsen, Norway