From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Feb 23 04:21:03 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org 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 7846016A420 for ; Thu, 23 Feb 2006 04:21:03 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from ruzzi@compedgeracing.com) Received: from mail.compedgeracing.com (dsl-katy-207-70-139-52.consolidated.net [207.70.139.52]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0EB8643D67 for ; Thu, 23 Feb 2006 04:21:00 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from ruzzi@compedgeracing.com) Received: from www.compedgeracing.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.compedgeracing.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F6395C2C for ; Wed, 22 Feb 2006 22:21:32 -0600 (CST) Received: from 207.70.139.52 (SquirrelMail authenticated user ruzzi) by www.compedgeracing.com with HTTP; Wed, 22 Feb 2006 22:21:32 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <55818.207.70.139.52.1140668492.squirrel@www.compedgeracing.com> In-Reply-To: <200602221642.10012.lists@jnielsen.net> References: <200602221642.10012.lists@jnielsen.net> Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 22:21:32 -0600 (CST) From: "Robert Uzzi" To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.6-rc1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Importance: Normal Subject: Re: mysql50-server not starting correctly on FreeBSD 6.1-PRERELEASE (ldconfig, rcorder) 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: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 04:21:03 -0000 > > I now have two questions: > > 1) Is this a correct fix? Probably not, the correct fix would have been to cvsup your ports tree to get the latest MySQL and then portupgrade MySQL which I'm guessing would have fixed the problem. I'm not seeing the problem on my MySQL boxes but then I sync the ports tree before I build. > > 2) If so, should I file a PR with a patch or can someone just get this > committed? Can't tell if it's a bug until the proper step's are done. Besudes if you are running an out of date port's tree the fix might have allready been commited.