From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Sep 12 22:22:18 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2835F106564A; Mon, 12 Sep 2011 22:22:18 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from varga.michal@gmail.com) Received: from mail-fx0-f54.google.com (mail-fx0-f54.google.com [209.85.161.54]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D0F48FC16; Mon, 12 Sep 2011 22:22:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: by fxg9 with SMTP id 9so2003004fxg.13 for ; Mon, 12 Sep 2011 15:22:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=subject:from:to:cc:content-type:organization:date:message-id :mime-version:x-mailer:content-transfer-encoding; bh=BL0BvpsN2fQnTnuOlmkMriK4beN1IOjfqveo+Feo424=; b=Ck+LEpCbacbGkN7jwxr2k7nhD0SZI9qqsIGMb0Mt/c2Ai0ioSDZsFN6uV9vBTwRkik d0opdyuhVwi1BZxFSG6wbIrwF4YCNK2/J3INrP9cH215ic1rgMSvXhMlQdAWYS64IGwp MvdoV+CLAnvMCR0ZMTHbqxjJKNSKMaUIM2lxs= Received: by 10.223.44.71 with SMTP id z7mr559055fae.24.1315864560411; Mon, 12 Sep 2011 14:56:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.0.101.2] (254.166.broadband10.iol.cz [90.177.166.254]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id e17sm2033285fae.17.2011.09.12.14.55.57 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 12 Sep 2011 14:55:59 -0700 (PDT) From: Michal Varga To: gabor@FreeBSD.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Organization: Stonehenge Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 23:55:56 +0200 Message-ID: <1315864556.1747.103.camel@xenon> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.32.1 FreeBSD GNOME Team Port Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Thank you (for making the ports less boring). X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 22:22:18 -0000 Dear maintainer of databases/gdbm, Thank you for committing the latest update of gdbm with a (nowhere to be found mentioned in UPDATING) shared library bump, which again makes my very dull FreeBSD installation a little bit more fun to maintain, and especially - *use* After all, it's been now running for close to a week without almost any minor ports breakage, so I presume that alone warrants a quick fix to that whole very boring and uneventful situation, of course: $ mplayer /libexec/ld-elf.so.1: Shared object "libgdbm.so.3" not found, required by "libpulse.so.0" [And I'm not going bother posting the remaining epic crashing cascade of all the other running PA applications, because then I might like, even start to sound somewhat negative-ish for a short moment, and who would possibly want to do that in the wholly beautiful day like this?] Anyway, what I was going to say in the first place... Ah, right - because, there is like, no possibility that a thing like gdbm might be actually used as a dependency somewhere, like for example, this tiny little unimportant piece of whateverish whatever called pulseaudio, I presume? I mean, what the heck, it's not like it's something as important as, say, a major sound system heavily employed in at least one of the two largest desktop environments of the current Unix world, so who could even care? Or, why even bother with a quick grep or some recursive checking? It's not that if the update breaks anything, nobody will step up to complain, and not that those crazy people out there can be seriously using FreeBSD as their main desktop OS, heck, FreeBSD even haz sound nao? And, anyway, it's Monday, real men would *hate* to start their weeks without spending an hour or few fixing a cascade of new port breakages, that goes without a question, no arguments from me. "So yeah, ok," one would probably mutter to himself, "I see it's simply that time of week again, so I'll just, like, rebuild everything recursively to catch the latest bump as we do now every odd week anyway and just get over it, not that there is anything better to do as the system is already totally unusable (again).." So yeah, that's easy fix, here we go then: ---> Reinstalling 'pulseaudio-0.9.22' (audio/pulseaudio) ---> Build of audio/pulseaudio started at: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 21:40:13 +0200 ---> Building '/usr/ports/audio/pulseaudio' ===> Cleaning for pulseaudio-0.9.22 ===> License check disabled, port has not defined LICENSE ===> Found saved configuration for pulseaudio-0.9.22 ===> Extracting for pulseaudio-0.9.22 => SHA256 Checksum OK for pulseaudio-0.9.22.tar.gz. ===> Patching for pulseaudio-0.9.22 ===> pulseaudio-0.9.22 depends on package: libtool>=2.4 - found ===> Applying FreeBSD patches for pulseaudio-0.9.22 ===> pulseaudio-0.9.22 depends on executable: gmake - found ===> pulseaudio-0.9.22 depends on file: /usr/local/libdata/pkgconfig/x11.pc - found ===> pulseaudio-0.9.22 depends on file: /usr/local/libdata/pkgconfig/sm.pc - found ===> pulseaudio-0.9.22 depends on file: /usr/local/libdata/pkgconfig/xtst.pc - found ===> pulseaudio-0.9.22 depends on file: /usr/local/libdata/pkgconfig/ice.pc - found ===> pulseaudio-0.9.22 depends on package: libtool>=2.4 - found ===> pulseaudio-0.9.22 depends on file: /usr/local/bin/intltool-extract - found ===> pulseaudio-0.9.22 depends on executable: pkg-config - found ===> pulseaudio-0.9.22 depends on shared library: samplerate.1 - found ===> pulseaudio-0.9.22 depends on shared library: speexdsp.1 - found ===> pulseaudio-0.9.22 depends on shared library: dbus-1.3 - found ===> pulseaudio-0.9.22 depends on shared library: gdbm.3 - not found ===> Verifying install for gdbm.3 in /usr/ports/databases/gdbm ===> Extracting for gdbm-1.9.1 ===> Patching for gdbm-1.9.1 [...] ===> Installing for gdbm-1.9.1 ===> Generating temporary packing list ===> Checking if databases/gdbm already installed ===> gdbm-1.9.1 is already installed *** Error code 1 Stop in /usr/ports/databases/gdbm. *** Error code 1 Yeeey. So I guess not. Now is it what we think it is? $ grep gdbm /usr/ports/audio/pulseaudio/Makefile gdbm.3:${PORTSDIR}/databases/gdbm \ Color me surprised, at this point. But I know. I know... It's not like the shared library bump was actually mentioned in the initial PR in the first place or anything... http://www.FreeBSD.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/160250 Oh. Right. It was. So, like... It's not that there is, actually, somehow, anyhow, possible to, dunno, maybe - NOT COMMITTING THE DAMN THING ALONE when there's absolutely positively 100% guarantee that stuff depending on it WILL INSTANTLY AND COMPLETELY BREAK. Because, not like that a one single quick look would reveal that. And I'm not even mentioning some actual real testing AND properly solving the case for the whole dependency tree first, BEFORE committing just the one port alone, because... If that was happening, what would then be all those end-users even doing all those empty days, other than rolling back ports and catching up/fixing breakages? For myself, I surely can't even imagine. So again, thank you for taking your part in ensuring that my days with FreeBSD (the remaining few, so to say) won't become too boring. It's much appreciated, really. m. -- Michal Varga, Stonehenge (Gmail account)