From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Feb 1 12:55:10 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 115E816A4D5; Tue, 1 Feb 2005 12:55:10 +0000 (GMT) Received: from melon.pingpong.net (82.milagro.bahnhof.net [195.178.168.82]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF4A043D2F; Tue, 1 Feb 2005 12:55:09 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from girgen@pingpong.net) Received: from localhost (localhost.pingpong.net [127.0.0.1]) by melon.pingpong.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 717F84AC33; Tue, 1 Feb 2005 13:55:08 +0100 (CET) Received: from melon.pingpong.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (melon.pingpong.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 64681-01-13; Tue, 1 Feb 2005 13:55:08 +0100 (CET) Received: from [192.168.1.187] (81.milagro.bahnhof.net [195.178.168.81]) by melon.pingpong.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D66E4AC2E; Tue, 1 Feb 2005 13:55:08 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 13:55:07 +0100 From: Palle Girgensohn To: Erwin Lansing , ports@FreeBSD.org Message-ID: <5F3C3D3C0669C87D87F2919F@rambutan.pingpong.net> In-Reply-To: <20050131123211.GK34218@droso.net> References: <8DCD7B0AFCB0682F6A0A6E4F@rambutan.pingpong.net> <20050131123211.GK34218@droso.net> X-Mailer: Mulberry/3.1.6 (Linux/x86) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at pingpong.net Subject: Re: INDEX breakage X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 12:55:10 -0000 --On m=E5ndag, januari 31, 2005 13.32.12 +0100 Erwin Lansing=20 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