Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 21:25:43 +0200 From: Joerg Pulz <Joerg.Pulz@frm2.tum.de> To: Wesley Shields <wxs@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org, eadler@freebsd.org, Robert Simmons <rsimmons0@gmail.com>, bug-followup@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ports/168214: Heimdal 1.5.2 problem Message-ID: <8AFE1D09-F9D3-49F0-9155-24E6C1EF2031@frm2.tum.de> In-Reply-To: <20120525183913.GC24924@atarininja.org> 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> <20120525183913.GC24924@atarininja.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 25.05.2012, at 20:39, Wesley Shields wrote: > 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. >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> I'm not opposed to removing the change to the default, but it = does cause >>>>>>> another problem. See below. >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> 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? >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> 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. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> My initial thoughts were only for installing the port as a = Heimdal >>>>>> server, and with the --with-berkeley-db=3Dno 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. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> 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. >>>>>=20 >>>>> This all sounds perfectly reasonable to me. :) >>>>>=20 >>>>> 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. >>>>=20 >>>> Sounds good. ?One question: what do you mean by PORTREVISION being = off >>>> by default? >>>=20 >>> 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. >>>=20 >>> 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. >>=20 >> 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. >=20 > That makes sense. Thanks for the clarification. I will be awaiting > maintainer approval or timeout then. Hi, please go ahead and commit and close ports/168214 using the last version = of the patch and please bump PORTREVISION. Sorry for this, i didn't noticed the configure arg change for building = without berkeley-db. Kind regards and thanks Joerg=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?8AFE1D09-F9D3-49F0-9155-24E6C1EF2031>