Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 14:39:13 -0400 From: Wesley Shields <wxs@FreeBSD.org> To: Robert Simmons <rsimmons0@gmail.com> Cc: eadler@freebsd.org, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Heimdal 1.5.2 problem Message-ID: <20120525183913.GC24924@atarininja.org> In-Reply-To: <CA%2BQLa9B5q=9Hmac7mnRiDPfsApL4KzBVwVh%2Bh0OcbtC735DCJw@mail.gmail.com> References: <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> <CA%2BQLa9B5q=9Hmac7mnRiDPfsApL4KzBVwVh%2Bh0OcbtC735DCJw@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 01:20:46PM -0400, Robert Simmons wrote: > 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> wrote: > >> >> > 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 responsibility 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 "\". ?Also, > >> >> >> 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 there > >> >> >> should be a message that at least one backend is needed for the port > >> >> >> to function, but none have been selected by default? > >> >> > > >> >> > If a backend is required the port should refuse to build if no backend > >> >> > 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 to > >> >> 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=no problem fixed it does not > >> >> 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 to > >> >> 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 default > >> >> 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. ?One 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=no" 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. That makes sense. Thanks for the clarification. I will be awaiting maintainer approval or timeout then. -- WXS
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120525183913.GC24924>