Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 00:57:36 -0500 From: Scot Hetzel <swhetzel@gmail.com> To: Michael Gmelin <grembo@freebsd.org> Cc: olli hauer <ohauer@gmx.de>, Kurt Jaeger <lists@opsec.eu>, ports-list freebsd <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: HEADS UP: Berkeley DB 4...4.7 port removals/upgrades may require manual preparation Message-ID: <CACdU%2Bf9pKaVucdJ_VJ%2B9OFywoy3_=YKzuUbZs-R3dwfScZyJ-Q@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20140824191643.005f8e1c@bsd64.grem.de> References: <53F640EF.7000200@FreeBSD.org> <20140824102826.GB9400@home.opsec.eu> <EB2B24ED-1D62-467B-8870-EEACA8A72281@freebsd.org> <20140824111149.GD9400@home.opsec.eu> <53F9CEDA.4070309@gmx.de> <20140824142050.5e336477@bsd64.grem.de> <CACdU%2Bf-D-MYxXYaoCbfPU%2BQuKpq041dSWdgZj0XzRO30_9pouA@mail.gmail.com> <20140824191643.005f8e1c@bsd64.grem.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 12:16 PM, Michael Gmelin <grembo@freebsd.org> wrote: > > > On Sun, 24 Aug 2014 11:59:37 -0500 > Scot Hetzel <swhetzel@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 7:20 AM, Michael Gmelin <grembo@freebsd.org> >> wrote: >> > @Olli: Checking Mk/bsd.databasemk it seems like you're right. It's >> > quite amusing how this went unnoticed for so long, it has been in >> > there for eight years :) >> > >> >> As the original author of the USE_BDB code, the USE_BDB=5 had worked >> in the past. As it is supposed to mean that this port only uses that >> version of BDB. The code was changed on Aug 21 (r365599) and the >> author of the new code might have forgot to test this case. >> > > Not sure if you read the rest of the thread, but this is still working > as intended (I tested using both the old and new version). > > The issue is, that USE_BDB=version means USE_BDB=yes, > WITH_BDB_VER=version, but Kurt has WITH_BDB_VER=6 in make.conf, > which overrides this version number and version =6 is invalid for > devel/ice. So basically it works as designed, Kurt wanted a specific > version of bdb, which doesn't work for devel/ice. > > The fix was to add WANT_BDB_VER= 5 in devel/ice, which I guess is ok, > since this is the only version it really works with (and I guess I > could remove the INVALID directive now, since WANT means really > *want*). > Hmm, I thought I had it implemented this way at one time. Any way. What we should be doing with the WITH_BDB_VER is not overriding the USE_BDB value. Instead we should see if it is a VALID version to use for this port, if it is not, then use the USE_BDB value. So basically the code should be doing the following: USE_BDB=yes - use the default version (48+) or the installed version if higher USE_BDB=yes, WITH_BDB_VER=6 - use version 6 USE_BDB=5 - should mean the same as USE_BDB=yes, WANT_BDB_VER=5 - shouldn't be able to override by setting WITH_BDB_VER=6 - this would also allow the removal of the WANT_BDB_VER variable. - no error should be generated when WITH_BDB_VER is set to an invalid version USE_BDB=48 6 - use (either 48 or 6) or the installed version that matches one of these versions - no error should be generated when WITH_BDB_VER is set to an invalid version USE_BDB=5+, WITH_BDB_VER=48 - use version 5+ or the installed version if higher - shouldn't allow downgrade to a lower unsupported version by setting the WITH_BDB_VER -- should we still display an error in this case or just install the port with bdb 5+? If we make the above changes to the code, then INVALID_BDB_VER and WANT_BDB_VER could disappear. > My question is, what the point of INVALID_BDB_VER really is in this > case, it seems a bit pointless to me given the trouble it caused Kurt > and how we resolved this. Having a fully specified list of supported > versions in WANT_BDB_VER seems better in this case (assuming WANT > supports listing multiple versions). > At the time I had implemented the code, INVALID_BDB_VER was meant to poke holes in the VER+: USE_BDB=2+ INVALID_BDB_VER=3 So the port would be able to use version 2 and 40+, and not 3. Probably should have just implanted it as: USE_BDB=2 40+ and skipped the INVALID_BDB_VER entirely. I was also thinking that we should make WITH_BDB_HIGHEST the default. It is used by VER+ when multiple versions of bdb are installed. That way we can remove this variable also. -- DISCLAIMER: No electrons were maimed while sending this message. Only slightly bruised.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CACdU%2Bf9pKaVucdJ_VJ%2B9OFywoy3_=YKzuUbZs-R3dwfScZyJ-Q>