Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2013 22:02:20 +0400 From: Ruslan Makhmatkhanov <cvs-src@yandex.ru> To: Dan Langille <dan@langille.org> Cc: freebsd-ports-bugs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ports/172600: [PKGNG]sysutils/bacula-client & sysutils/bacula-server conflict and shouldn't Message-ID: <50E5C7AC.9000802@yandex.ru> In-Reply-To: <c11fb13f8825e1dc19ab2af6454e3153@mail.unixathome.org> References: <201301031245.r03Cj8fm045924@freefall.freebsd.org> <b9ab1d9a6481192685a164a194017da6@webmail.lerctr.org> <50E5AD5D.8020402@yandex.ru> <c11fb13f8825e1dc19ab2af6454e3153@mail.unixathome.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Dan Langille wrote on 03.01.2013 20:37: > On 2013-01-03 11:10, Ruslan Makhmatkhanov wrote: >> Thank you for quick reply! >> >> Larry Rosenman wrote on 03.01.2013 19:52: >>> ===> Running ldconfig >>> /sbin/ldconfig -m /usr/local/lib >>> ===> Registering installation for bacula-client-5.2.12 >>> Installing bacula-client-5.2.12...pkg: bacula-client-5.2.12 conflicts >>> with bacula-server-5.2.12 (installs files into the same place). >>> Problematic file: /usr/local/man/man8/bacula-fd.8.gz >> >> It's quite odd, because this file is installed only if >> WITH_CLIENT_ONLY is enabled. Can't it be some pkg cached result or >> something? Would you please try to set PORTREVISION to 1 in >> bacula-server/Makefile and try again? If this helps, > > Larry: FYI: bacula-server now installs bacula-client as a LIB_DEPENDS > > Thus, after installing bacula-server, bacula-client should already be > installed. > > Does that help? Maybe they need to be deinstalled first? > Ahh, yes, we did not bump the PORTREVISION. I think we should have. Let > me know > if a bump helps. > >>> Yes, it still seems to be broken, there is a pending PR to fix it, but >>> AFAIK it has NOT been committed yet. >> >> This one, that I closed today? >> http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=170773 > > No, this PR committed in Dec: > > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/167700 > >> I believe it's no more applicable to current port state and something >> similar is done in current bacula ports anyway. > > I do not understand the above statement. Forget it :). I mean something like "this particular patch (from pr I mentioned) will not apply against current ports tree". And the second part - the current bacula ports should be ok by themselves, and no modification like in that pr is needed anymore. But it's strange that it still failing with pkgng. -- Regards, Ruslan Tinderboxing kills... the drives.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?50E5C7AC.9000802>