Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 13:55:07 +0100 From: Palle Girgensohn <girgen@pingpong.net> To: Erwin Lansing <erwin@FreeBSD.org>, ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: INDEX breakage Message-ID: <5F3C3D3C0669C87D87F2919F@rambutan.pingpong.net> In-Reply-To: <20050131123211.GK34218@droso.net> References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0501310253400.32023-100000@pancho> <8DCD7B0AFCB0682F6A0A6E4F@rambutan.pingpong.net> <20050131123211.GK34218@droso.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--On m=E5ndag, januari 31, 2005 13.32.12 +0100 Erwin Lansing=20 <erwin@FreeBSD.org> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 01:27:16PM +0100, Palle Girgensohn wrote: >> I honestly don't believe this. Did you really upgrade everything? Seems >> like you have an old Mk/bsd.ports.mk? >> > The ports mentioned by Mark still include direct references to the > postgresql-ports instead of using USE_PGSQL. Luckily, they use ports > that still exist while the two I fixed used older ports. INDEX now > builds fine, but I still think those ports need to be fixed. No, this is incorrect, actually. Those ports require a postgresql-server=20 port (as opposed to -client). Not many ports do, and they sometimes use=20 unorthodox tweaks, so I decided there's no point in having a=20 USE_PGSQL_SERVER knob. Those ports are correct, and they are updated to=20 reflect the behaviour of the New PostgreSQL Order. The index breakage must be because some other reason, something that's=20 changed locally. Regards, Palle
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5F3C3D3C0669C87D87F2919F>