Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 13:20:46 -0400 From: Robert Simmons <rsimmons0@gmail.com> To: Wesley Shields <wxs@freebsd.org> Cc: eadler@freebsd.org, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Heimdal 1.5.2 problem Message-ID: <CA%2BQLa9B5q=9Hmac7mnRiDPfsApL4KzBVwVh%2Bh0OcbtC735DCJw@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20120525165617.GB24924@atarininja.org> References: <CA%2BQLa9AC_mDrBiPaYOJ_M3F%2Bq07aUV1TATJcFgxSKCr2gPOFWw@mail.gmail.com> <9880B4F2567E41A582B6B9DA178AECFD@black> <CA%2BQLa9Bs1VSBoMW0cHvSSeET=9X7F--33iv=860FzKv%2BHYuqNg@mail.gmail.com> <CA%2BQLa9CeMN9=FF_BuKNeADuVkK5Hs74_MxsB97_zKRkT9hkDug@mail.gmail.com> <20120522125710.GB18115@atarininja.org> <CA%2BQLa9CBOw4HywRELLB8%2BCE%2Bc7t572bXdJhPi40smQxzT1LC4Q@mail.gmail.com> <20120522211434.GA5483@atarininja.org> <CA%2BQLa9DEpcPMDwnj204d_AsMUiz_=Vu75o_PViJe8H=yCp68Ew@mail.gmail.com> <20120525003844.GA24924@atarininja.org> <CA%2BQLa9DT8njo48Zh9TRimxTTXXkCZsK0D67ZsEtHk4XOUBQP9g@mail.gmail.com> <20120525165617.GB24924@atarininja.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 12:56 PM, Wesley Shields <wxs@freebsd.org> wrote: > On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 12:21:54PM -0400, Robert Simmons wrote: >> On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 8:38 PM, Wesley Shields <wxs@freebsd.org> wrote: >> > On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 06:29:20PM -0400, Robert Simmons wrote: >> >> On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 5:14 PM, Wesley Shields <wxs@freebsd.org> wro= te: >> >> > On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 03:08:31PM -0400, Robert Simmons wrote: >> >> >> On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 8:57 AM, Wesley Shields <wxs@freebsd.org> = wrote: >> >> >> > As the person who committed this update I will take responsibili= ty for >> >> >> > seeing this through. Would you mind opening a PR with this patch= and CC >> >> >> > both myself and the maintainer so it can be properly tracked. I = will >> >> >> > work with both of you to make sure it is addressed. >> >> >> >> >> >> I got some good feedback about the patch. ?I was missing a "\". ?A= lso, >> >> >> it was noted that I shouldn't make changes to the default settings= in >> >> >> this patch since it is meant to correct a problem. ?I removed the >> >> >> change to default. >> >> > >> >> > I'm not opposed to removing the change to the default, but it does = cause >> >> > another problem. See below. >> >> > >> >> >> Perhaps the different default is not the best solution. ?Maybe the= re >> >> >> should be a message that at least one backend is needed for the po= rt >> >> >> to function, but none have been selected by default? >> >> > >> >> > If a backend is required the port should refuse to build if no back= end >> >> > is selected. This is pretty easy to do, just check for at least one= of >> >> > the backends. I have no idea if multiple backends can be supported = so >> >> > you may or may not want to also check for that. >> >> >> >> I may have been too hasty. ?I've thought of a situation where one >> >> would want to build the port with no backend at all. ?If one wanted t= o >> >> use the tools in the port to administrate a remote install of Heimdal= , >> >> they may want to build it without a backend. >> >> >> >> My initial thoughts were only for installing the port as a Heimdal >> >> server, and with the --with-berkeley-db=3Dno problem fixed it does no= t >> >> wrongly find the version of BDB in the base OS. ?With this fix, the >> >> port can function with no backends selected. ?It just won't be able t= o >> >> function in a server capacity. >> >> >> >> I am also not an expert in Heimdal, I just installed it from source >> >> via its own instructions and compared that with what the FreeBSD port >> >> was doing. ?I'd wait for the maintainer to make changes to the defaul= t >> >> behavior for the above reason. >> > >> > This all sounds perfectly reasonable to me. :) >> > >> > If I'm understanding you correctly the patch[1] in ports/168214 is the >> > correct one to commit. The only change I would make is not bumping >> > PORTREVISION since the option is off by default. Sounds like the only >> > thing left to do is wait for maintainer comment on the PR and commit >> > accordingly. >> >> Sounds good. =A0One question: what do you mean by PORTREVISION being off >> by default? > > There is no need to bump PORTREVISION because the option which you are > changing is off by default so there's no need to force a rebuild of it > on the package cluster since your changes are going to have no effect > there. > > For those that have the option to on, it hasn't built properly for them > yet so bumping is going to have no effect either. I understand what you're saying. However, my change would actually change the package cluster. Because those packages were built with "--without-berkeley-db" rather than "--with-berkeley-db=3Dno" the old packages were built with broken BDB support by accident. By fixing this, the default package is actually going to be different than the one built before this change. I would recommend bumping PORTREVISION because of this.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CA%2BQLa9B5q=9Hmac7mnRiDPfsApL4KzBVwVh%2Bh0OcbtC735DCJw>