From owner-freebsd-gnome@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jun 22 15:52:23 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: gnome@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81372106568A; Sun, 22 Jun 2008 15:52:23 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rehsack@web.de) Received: from fmmailgate02.web.de (fmmailgate02.web.de [217.72.192.227]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4682C8FC14; Sun, 22 Jun 2008 15:52:22 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rehsack@web.de) Received: from smtp07.web.de (fmsmtp07.dlan.cinetic.de [172.20.5.215]) by fmmailgate02.web.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B684E2C176F; Sun, 22 Jun 2008 17:24:11 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [87.149.234.168] (helo=waldorf.muppets.liwing.de) by smtp07.web.de with esmtp (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (WEB.DE 4.109 #226) id 1KARQJ-0004Dg-00; Sun, 22 Jun 2008 17:24:11 +0200 Message-ID: <485E6E98.9000106@web.de> Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2008 15:24:08 +0000 From: Jens Rehsack User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (X11/20080608) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bug-followup@FreeBSD.org, delphij@freebsd.org, FreeBSD GNOME Users Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rehsack@web.de X-Sender: rehsack@web.de X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18CpdYqrJuWefcc7/R4izL1gQd+Pi0TXbt0vrhO iF5kimaWlAmMsKcLXIgW/+ACjWAhtBffu8jcOQ1yalBZdit0el WCF5uouSM= Cc: Subject: Re: ports/124115: net/openldap24-server: Auto-Detect OpenLDAP version and modify knobs according to common names X-BeenThere: freebsd-gnome@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: GNOME for FreeBSD -- porting and maintaining List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2008 15:52:23 -0000 Hi, I tried a little around with the submitted patch and detected 2 issues: 1) I had a typo in line 37 of bsd.ldap.mk -DEFAULT_OPENLDPAP_VER?= 23 +DEFAULT_OPENLDAP_VER?= 23 It's quite easy to fix it ;) 2) A port (security/seahorse) checks in line 72 for ${WANT_OPENLDAP_VER}, which is deprecated. By the way - it doesn't want to check for WANT_OPENLDAP_VER, it wants to check for ${OPENLDAP_VER}. Doing this would require to split the "code" in bsd.ldap.mk into a pre- and post-part, not handle everything in the post-part. What do you think? /Jens