From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Sep 26 05:21:13 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EEE21065675; Mon, 26 Sep 2011 05:21:13 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from delphij@delphij.net) Received: from anubis.delphij.net (anubis.delphij.net [IPv6:2001:470:1:117::25]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32B2E8FC13; Mon, 26 Sep 2011 05:21:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from delta.delphij.net (c-76-102-50-245.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [76.102.50.245]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by anubis.delphij.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DE4BF7FEC; Sun, 25 Sep 2011 22:21:12 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=delphij.net; s=anubis; t=1317014473; bh=YhU6FKFd+OyRsv2MHwpilxPMt3bGjrO59Piy0AMKGtg=; h=Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject: References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=Bloi7aVqvIdYZUuOXeQIs5BxCJDFW6JLSADfku1Ir4qN7IC+tjiITjpyaXIxRXy65 pzHi4EmYsNgb0nKZIqTocUsitzm5bE2Yvk1l4dXqJ7hOxRo8cbZ26bN7F3UaHT4KQ/ O+Azl4IfalghRxnT90LXKw0nhbJVIm2n+gZib3yk= Message-ID: <4E800BC7.1010206@delphij.net> Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2011 22:21:11 -0700 From: Xin LI Organization: The FreeBSD Project MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org, Xin LI References: <20110925215915.GB1411@rwpc13.mby.riverwillow.net.au> In-Reply-To: <20110925215915.GB1411@rwpc13.mby.riverwillow.net.au> OpenPGP: id=3FCA37C1; url=http://www.delphij.net/delphij.asc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: gslin@gslin.org, Yen-Ming Lee , Matthias Andree Subject: Re: net/openldap24-server won't start after bdb5 upgrade X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: d@delphij.net List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 05:21:13 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 09/25/11 14:59, John Marshall wrote: > If net/openldap24-server is built WITH_BDB_VER=5, the server will > fail to load the bdb backend at startup and will fail. > > ---------------- @(#) $OpenLDAP: slapd 2.4.26 (Sep 26 2011 > 06:13:10) lt_dlopenext failed: (back_bdb) file not found config > error processing cn=module{0},cn=config: handler > exited with 1 slapd stopped. ---------------- > > This is because the port doesn't include the BDB backend in the > build. The BDB backend is excluded from the build because the port > doesn't recognize the new BDB version numbering now used in > bsd.database.mk. > > About a month ago I submitted a simple patch to work around this > but I guess the maintainer has been too busy to look at it. I just > got bitten again with the recent bdb 5.2.28 --> 5.2.36 upgrade and > thought I'd mention it here. > > See ports/160270 for Makefile patch. Oh actually I should have sent some email about this to BDB maintainers but that never got sent (I've hit some issue that I can not really solve without their help). I've added them in Cc so maybe they can chim in on this topic. Basically the problem was I saw a drastic policy change beginning from Berkeley DB 5.x and didn't know yet where we are going. Long story short, in the past we can specify specific version "47", "48" or "least version" like "47+", or as compatibility shim (as I understood), use "1" and "4" for "base system bdb 1.85" or "40" (which is actually databases/db4). By the way, beginning from databases/db5, older Berkeley DB versions, like 5.0.x, 5.1.x, is no longer provided by ports collection. This might be because 5.2.x's file format is backward compatible? If we have decided NOT to support 5.0.x and 5.1.x at all, and intend to have only "BerkeleyDB 5.x", and future Berkeley DB releases, then your patch might be good to have; If, however, we still need to support older Berkeley 5.0.x and 5.1.x series, I'd recommend that we deprecate using single digit version numbers like "5" and use "52" or "50+" instead. Using single digit version numbers would require more logic in individual ports and is doesn't seem a good idea... Cheers, - -- Xin LI https://www.delphij.net/ FreeBSD - The Power to Serve! Live free or die -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (FreeBSD) iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJOgAvHAAoJEATO+BI/yjfBmR0H/iZ3KqEuRYM0k5ecck5v8dXJ +RAKexu59aqkX/M9JKWuE/UFVRaYhD8qNtqC4Z4Hqxe22VR6TLVyBWqJVkA7KjFv 8QhrinfGG6SH1o/D1VfZjDQhnNzDqMnzbuj0zkjjIJc0u6+73UUA7+RMPnBWOyDF qjSVOvKxsdTkMxEi/1RF1FGhNYFfnx7O9tGzvRu8RIERUwAn0Ec9Z8FX1gMmM3lA 1W0TPYCp92ey0MbYTvJibpzBt54IDG/ze2aOaSc82AG5tQ++CYcEeoO1fPq3ZB3v a+H2QAtSzsN+PBoc9fkJ6hGLmLVIk8cyNXYnaNinmtLQsbwZeLv7oIqcyV0Sf7Y= =2QEQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----