From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Aug 24 14:44:37 2014 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 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3BF704D4 for ; Sun, 24 Aug 2014 14:44:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.grem.de (outcast.grem.de [213.239.217.27]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 093DB33C6 for ; Sun, 24 Aug 2014 14:44:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 51370 invoked by uid 89); 24 Aug 2014 14:44:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO bsd64.grem.de) (mg@grem.de@88.217.180.38) by mail.grem.de with ESMTPA; 24 Aug 2014 14:44:33 -0000 Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2014 16:44:34 +0200 From: Michael Gmelin To: olli hauer , Kurt Jaeger , ports-list freebsd Subject: Re: HEADS UP: Berkeley DB 4...4.7 port removals/upgrades may require manual preparation Message-ID: <20140824164434.1bfddfcb@bsd64.grem.de> In-Reply-To: <20140824153618.32060060@bsd64.grem.de> References: <53F640EF.7000200@FreeBSD.org> <20140824102826.GB9400@home.opsec.eu> <20140824111149.GD9400@home.opsec.eu> <53F9CEDA.4070309@gmx.de> <20140824142050.5e336477@bsd64.grem.de> <20140824123006.GE9400@home.opsec.eu> <20140824143728.0d5c435b@bsd64.grem.de> <53F9E3B7.10009@gmx.de> <20140824153618.32060060@bsd64.grem.de> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.10.1 (GTK+ 2.24.22; amd64-portbld-freebsd10.0) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Matthias Andree 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: Sun, 24 Aug 2014 14:44:37 -0000 On Sun, 24 Aug 2014 15:36:18 +0200 Michael Gmelin wrote: > On Sun, 24 Aug 2014 15:08:07 +0200 > olli hauer wrote: > > > On 2014-08-24 14:37, Michael Gmelin wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Sun, 24 Aug 2014 14:30:06 +0200 > > > Kurt Jaeger wrote: > > > > > >> Hi! > > >> > > >>>> Hm, using USE_BDB=$numble looks wrong to me in devel/ice. > > >>>> > > >>>> Can you test the following patch. > > >>>> > > >>>> Index: Makefile > > >>>> =================================================================== > > >>>> --- devel/ice/Makefile (revision 365910) > > >>>> +++ devel/ice/Makefile (working copy) > > >>>> @@ -27,7 +27,8 @@ > > >>>> .endif > > >>>> > > >>>> USES= iconv gmake > > >>>> -USE_BDB= 5 > > >>>> +USE_BDB= yes > > >>>> +WANT_BDB_VER= 5 > > >>>> INVALID_BDB_VER= 40 41 42 43 44 46 47 48 6 > > >>>> USE_LDCONFIG= yes > > >>>> BUILD_WRKSRC?= ${WRKSRC}/cpp > > >> > > >>> @Kurt: Could you test and confirm? If this works, I'll commit > > >>> the patch. > > >> > > >> Yes, it builds. > > >> > > > > > > I created a commit request > > > > > > https://reviews.freebsd.org/D679 > > > > > > > Kurt, or you can commit this even w.o. PR. > > The patch does not break anything but allows the port to build as > > required. I assume there are even more easter eggs in the tree, > > specially for USE_BDB. > > @Kurt: I assume you have WITH_BDB_VER= 6 in your make.conf? > > A short grep shows that the following ports are affected, the question > is if simply converting them to > > USE_BDB= yes > WANT_BDB_VER= > > is the right thing to do. > To answer my own question: Probably not, as it seems legal to use USE_BDB= , which *should* (or at least used to) have the same effect as USE_BDB= yes WITH_BDB_VER= I'm a bit curious what the correct use of INVALID_BDB_VER is, since it seems incompatible with using WITH_BDB_VER in make.conf, so in the end a port always has to specify WANT_BDB_VER if you want to ensure it builds correctly. Also, using INVALID_BDB_VER in devel/ice seems redundant now: USE_BDB= yes WANT_BDB_VER= 5 INVALID_BDB_VER= 40 41 42 43 44 46 47 48 6 I assume that USE_BDB= yes WANT_BDB_VER= 5 will accomplish the same. - Michael -- Michael Gmelin