From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jul 17 10:09:02 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67D17106566B for ; Sun, 17 Jul 2011 10:09:02 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from admin@prnet.org) Received: from jailfr.prnet.org (fr.prnet.org [188.165.216.122]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05D618FC1D for ; Sun, 17 Jul 2011 10:09:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.1] (ip-213-135-240-128.static.luxdsl.pt.lu [213.135.240.128]) (authenticated bits=0) by jailfr.prnet.org (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p6HA8BNH025369 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 17 Jul 2011 12:08:23 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from admin@prnet.org) From: David Arendt To: bf1783@gmail.com In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2011 12:07:49 +0200 Message-ID: <1310897269.93980.10.camel@server.intern.prnet.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.32.1 FreeBSD GNOME Team Port Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: options used to compile packages X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2011 10:09:02 -0000 Hi, When I did the test, I used FreeBSD 8.2 amd64 using the ports collection delivered with this distribution. Yesterday I did a checkout of the latest ports tree. I compiled bash, xorg, xfce and gdm using the default options. When trying to login using gdm, it still complains about a missing keyring pam module. When I disable keyring support in gdm, gdm runs flawlessly. Therefore I thought that options used to compile the offical packages might be different. If default options are used to compile them, it should be a some other problem. To ensure that my build environment is not polluted, I did this test on a fresh installation. But anyway it doesn't matter as I have a workaround. Thanks for your valuable information, Bye, David Arendt On Sat, 2011-07-16 at 18:12 -0400, b. f. wrote: > > well I don't actually now which package it was, but I compiled gdm (so > > it should be one of it's dependencies). A compilation resulted in a non > > working gdm (something with pam support not found on execution). Upon > > installing gdm and is dependencies from packages, everything worked > > correctly. Therefore I thought there might be other default options. I > > am sorry that I cannot be more precise, but I tried it 2 months ago, so > > I do not remember exactly. I think I will try it again from scratch with > > latest ports tree and give you more precise information. > > In addition to the obvious possibilities that your test was faulty, or > that you somehow polluted your build environment, It is also possible > that: > > -at least one of your ports was a different version than used in the > default packages, and had a bug; > > -there was a transient build error; > > or > > -you were using a different version of FreeBSD than that used to build > the default packages that you used, and there is a problem with one of > the ports on that version of FreeBSD. > > b.