From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Nov 15 06:52:14 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D62316A420 for ; Tue, 15 Nov 2005 06:52:14 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from craig@yekse.gank.org) Received: from ion.gank.org (ion.gank.org [69.55.238.164]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5D4B43D53 for ; Tue, 15 Nov 2005 06:52:13 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from craig@yekse.gank.org) Received: by ion.gank.org (mail, from userid 1001) id 566C42D2CF; Tue, 15 Nov 2005 00:52:13 -0600 (CST) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 00:52:11 -0600 From: Craig Boston To: Jiawei Ye Message-ID: <20051115065211.GB35001@nowhere> Mail-Followup-To: Craig Boston , Jiawei Ye , "Michael C. Shultz" , freebsd-ports@freebsd.org References: <200511142145.05316.ringworm01@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Why does security/amavisd-new depend on db3? X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 06:52:14 -0000 On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 02:01:26PM +0800, Jiawei Ye wrote: > in pkgtools.conf: > MAKE_ARGS = { > 'databases/p5-BerkeleyDB' => 'WITH_BDB_VER=42', > > in pm-020.conf > databases/p5-BerkeleyDB|WITH_BDB_VER=42| Does it work if you also set WITH_BDB_VER for security/amavisd-new? I suspect that the dependencies being registered at install time for amavisd-new are being calculated based on the environment at that time, by recursing the ports tree rather than looking at installed packages. A quick glance looks like: cd /usr/ports/security/amavisd-new && make package-depends-list shows bdb3 normally, and changes to bdb42 when WITH_BDB_VER=42 is set. IIRC portupgrade and portmanager both install ports one at a time, so if the list is created in this way you may need to make sure the options are consistent for all the ones affected by them... If that works, it's not necessarily portmanager's fault but rather a bug (feature?) in the ports system. Craig