From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Mar 21 14:50:47 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7AF2D97; Sat, 21 Mar 2015 14:50:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.madpilot.net (grunt.madpilot.net [78.47.145.38]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 34FD6EE7; Sat, 21 Mar 2015 14:50:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail (mail [192.168.254.3]) by mail.madpilot.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3l8PzN1D0RzZs8; Sat, 21 Mar 2015 15:50:40 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail.madpilot.net ([192.168.254.3]) by mail (mail.madpilot.net [192.168.254.3]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EKx8qhiQN8Z2; Sat, 21 Mar 2015 15:50:37 +0100 (CET) Received: from tommy.madpilot.net (micro.madpilot.net [88.149.173.206]) by mail.madpilot.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA; Sat, 21 Mar 2015 15:50:37 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <550D853C.7070303@FreeBSD.org> Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2015 15:50:36 +0100 From: Guido Falsi User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Michelle Sullivan Subject: Re: net/unison240 depends on lang/ocaml-nox11 References: <550D4CA0.8000606@sorbs.net> <550D61BF.3030403@FreeBSD.org> <550D636B.5020000@sorbs.net> <550D6D0F.7080401@FreeBSD.org> <550D7726.1060704@sorbs.net> In-Reply-To: <550D7726.1060704@sorbs.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Jeremie Le Hen , freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2015 14:50:47 -0000 On 03/21/15 14:50, Michelle Sullivan wrote: > Guido Falsi wrote: >> On 03/21/15 13:26, Michelle Sullivan wrote: >> >> >> This leads me to think there is some misalignment of the X11 option in >> your setup, that's why I asked for the full log of the failed build, I >> need to check the environment. >> [...] >> >> I'm doing some testing but if you could provide me the build log of the >> failed unison build it would help. >> >> > You maybe right .. somehow I have a misaligned make.conf for 93amd64 vs > 93i386 (everything built without error until 93i386) > > > root@93i386:~ # more /usr/local/etc/poudriere.d/93amd64-make.conf > NO_WARNING_PKG_INSTALL_EOL=yes > WITH_MODPERL2=yes > OPTIONS_UNSET=X11 NLS > DEFAULT_VERSIONS+=apache=2.2 > TEX_DEFAULT=tetex > root@93i386:~ # more /usr/local/etc/poudriere.d/93i386-make.conf > NO_WARNING_PKG_INSTALL_EOL=yes > WITH_MODPERL2=yes > OPTIONS_UNSET=NLS > DEFAULT_VERSIONS+=apache=2.2 perl5=5.16 > PERL5_DEFAULT=5.16 > TEX_DEFAULT=tetex > WITH_NEW_MESA=yes > root@93i386:~ # more > /usr/local/etc/poudriere.d/93i386-options/net_unison/options > # This file is auto-generated by 'make config'. > # Options for unison-2.40.102_3 > _OPTIONS_READ=unison-2.40.102_3 > _FILE_COMPLETE_OPTIONS_LIST=DOCS X11 > OPTIONS_FILE_UNSET+=DOCS > OPTIONS_FILE_UNSET+=X11 > > Which means that if unsetting X11 on in the port and not globally ocaml > is built with X11 and unison without - which poudriere will fail on when > it tries to find the dependencies... which means my thoughts were > exactly the opposite ... poudriere scans the dependency tree on startup > which picks up the -nox11 package as a dependency then builds with x11 > when it builds ocaml... Exactly. There are four cases: one asks for both with or without X11, works fine, in both. one asks for ocaml without X11 and unison with X11, this is wrong and cannot obviously work. last case is asking for ocaml with X11 and unison without. This could work in theory, and will work on a live system, but will not work in poudriere at present, due to ocaml changing it's package name dynamically. I don't know how to make it work with the present ports system. This fourth case anyway makes little sense to me anyway, once you have pulled in the X11 dependency why not use it in all ports which can take advantage of it? -- Guido Falsi