Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 08:56:33 +0100 From: Matthias Andree <mandree@FreeBSD.org> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: mutt vs db44 // Bug in /usr/ports/Mk/bsd.database.mk ? Message-ID: <5121DEB1.3030904@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20130209131330.GF4018@ma.sigsys.de> References: <20130208201503.GB4018@ma.sigsys.de> <20130208220108.GC4018@ma.sigsys.de> <86ehgpabwi.wl%hskuhra@eumx.net> <20130209131330.GF4018@ma.sigsys.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Am 09.02.2013 14:13, schrieb Raphael Eiselstein: > On Sat, Feb 09, 2013 at 01:51:09PM +0100, Herbert J. Skuhra wrote: >> Have you tried to set >> >> # WITH_BDB_VER >> # - User defined global variable to set Berkeley DB version. >> # <UNIQUENAME>_WITH_BDB_VER >> # - User defined port specific variable to set Berkeley DB >> # version. >> in /etc/make.conf? > > havn't tried yet. But for me it makes more sens to pin all ports to the > *same* version of BDB. Yes it does, but it should not be an obsolete version. For me, it does not make sense to pin ports to obsolete db4* versions at all. Set WITH_BDB_HIGHEST=yes in /etc/make.conf, install db5, and reinstall all ports that depend on db4* so they get moved to db5, and move on - which may require that you report issues if a port does not work with db5, or a port fails to detect db5 properly. I have considered making WITH_BDB_HIGHEST=yes the default, but I am loathe to do that until the day we can do -exp runs again. See <https://wiki.freebsd.org/Ports/BerkeleyDBCleanup>; as well, and feel free to add requirements to the migration. > Is there any problem linking db44 to *any* port? > in /etc/make.conf I'd set > ----------------------- > WITH_BDB_VER=44 > ----------------------- > > What will fail if I do so? (recompiling all our local packages will take 12h+ > just to find out ...) > > Why do we have so much versions of bdb in our ports? Because some (very few) ports have particular requirements about the API; other than that, I - as maintainer of many of the db4* ports and of the db5 port - concur with Scot Hetzel's two postings as of 8 - 9 hours ago in this same thread; particularly, if a port's dependency logic does not match what the port's auto-configuration detects (whether autoconf or some other system), then the port must be fixed. If the mutt port records a db42 requirement but mutt's autoconf picks up db44, that is a bug in the port's Makefile that should be reported to mutt's port maintainer ("make -C /usr/ports/mail/mutt maintainer) by a PR. Feel free to Cc: me on PRs to ports that merely _use_ some of my db ports, or ask the port's maintainer (mutt's port maintainer in this case) to approach me for help with the dependencies. Do Cc: me on PRs regarding Berkeley DB specific parts of Mk/bsd.database.mk. Best regards Matthias -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlEh3qsACgkQvmGDOQUufZWNlQCfZRn4l2xYjbxsU8o+JdJWg+EW cl4AoKqQrB0xwAyzTEMpME53jyDuoaQD =JH8X -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5121DEB1.3030904>