Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 16:11:37 -0700 From: Atanas <atanas@asd.aplus.net> To: Matthias Andree <matthias.andree@gmx.de> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: portupgrade bug: -M no longer works after v2.1.0 Message-ID: <44B43029.1060309@asd.aplus.net> In-Reply-To: <m364i3rhq2.fsf@merlin.emma.line.org> References: <44B40863.9060403@asd.aplus.net> <m364i3rhq2.fsf@merlin.emma.line.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Matthias Andree said the following on 7/11/06 1:48 PM: > Atanas <atanas@asd.aplus.net> writes: > >> Recent portupgrade versions no longer obey the -M command line switch, >> i.e. any optional arguments to be prepended to each make command. >> >> How to reproduce: >> >> # portinstall -M "APACHE_HARD_SERVER_LIMIT=1024" www/apache13 >> ... >> ===> src/ap >> cc -c -I../os/unix -I../include -I/usr/local/include -funsigned-char >> -O2 -fno-strict-aliasing -pipe >> -DDOCUMENT_LOCATION=\"/usr/local/www/data\" >> -DDEFAULT_PATH=\"/bin:/usr/bin:/usr/local/bin\" -DHARD_SERVER_LIMIT=512 >> `../apaci` ap_cpystrn.c >> ... >> >> Note the -DHARD_SERVER_LIMIT=512 above. > > Does it work if you type (you can omit the env in /bin/sh, bash, (pd)ksh > and other Bourne-like shells): > > env APACHE_HARD_SERVER_LIMIT=1024 portinstall www/apache13 > Of course it would, but this just bypasses the problem. There are other ways to work this around as well - like not using portupgrade at all and building everything with make. The problem is that there's a bug introduced by some of the recent portupgrade versions that changes its documented behavior. The '-M' switch in partucular no longer works, thus causing any existing port/package installation scripts depending on that switch to build packages with incorrect optional parameters. It's not a problem with a particular port. The www/apache13 port was given just as example how to reproduce the bug. This affects _all_ ports when installed/upgraded/built via portupgrade and when the '-M' switch is used. > (Isn't it time to migrate to a newer Apache version anyways? 8-) ) > (This is a long subject and kind of off-topic here. My short answer is no, or not yet. In some environments there are still legitimate reasons to use 1.3) Regards, Atanas
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?44B43029.1060309>