From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Oct 20 07:35:19 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 002D9A83 for ; Sun, 20 Oct 2013 07:35:18 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd.contact@marino.st) Received: from shepard.synsport.net (mail.synsport.com [208.69.230.148]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CC9A52A86 for ; Sun, 20 Oct 2013 07:35:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.0.22] (unknown [130.255.26.50]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by shepard.synsport.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 024A8438BC; Sun, 20 Oct 2013 02:34:54 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <5263878C.4010206@marino.st> Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2013 09:34:36 +0200 From: John Marino User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Paul Schmehl Subject: Re: Compiling sguil-server on Release 9.2 i386 References: <3ad43ac4.80255.141d12204c7.Webtop.45@charter.net> <52629946.90204@marino.st> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: s_gammons@charter.net, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list Reply-To: marino@freebsd.org List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2013 07:35:19 -0000 On 10/20/2013 03:49, Paul Schmehl wrote: >> >> You should create a PR on sguil-server and document all this there and >> request the maintainer fix it properly. Personally I don't think any >> shell commands are needed at all, certainly not to specify a >> RUN_DEPENDS. it's all messed up. >> > > I'm the maintainer, and I can assure you I tested it thoroughly. The > port has built without error on many machines before this came up. I've > personally built and tested it numerous times. With the MYSQL option set on? The default is off, so building the default configuration numerous times would not have hit this. > > Nevertheless, I will take a look at what you've discussed and attempt to > determine what the problem is. It appears that something may have > changed in 9.2 that is causing the problem. Unfortunately I don't have > a 9.2 install, so I'll have to set one up before I can test it. It is not a mystery what is wrong. The RUN_DEPENDS is being executed as a shell command, not a make definition. That was never correct, and the new bmake makes this much more obvious. Secondly, I'm pretty sure you can specify databases/mysqltcl without having to execute a make command on that port. Thirdly, you use ${MYSQLTCL_VER}, but it's never defined. Apparently line 46 was intended to define it but does not. Lastly, if you were to use a shell command (which I highly discourage), it should be something like this (not indented, and definitely not hardcoded to ${PORTSDIR}): MYSQLT_VER!= cd ${.CURDIR}/../../databases/mysqltcl && ${MAKE} -V PORTVERSION So that's like 4 or 5 errors right off the bat, problems that were always present. I suspect the legacy make simply didn't define RUN_DEPENDS and continued building, so mysqltcl was never specified in the package. John