ports/123879: databases/db41 fails during configure

[Matthias Andree]

On Tue, 27 May 2008, Mark Linimon wrote:

> That's not the way that portmgr has interpreted the committer's
> responsibilities in the past, fwiw.
> 
> By the same logic as the above, you could say that no version of
> FreeBSD is "officially supported".  Everything is done by volunteers
> on a best-effort basis.
> 
> But traditionally, we have asked maintainers to try to keep things
> going on whatever is -current, as well as -stable.  I know that's a
> lot to ask, but I don't see any other way to keep ports working on
> -current.  Does anyone else have any suggestions?

By the same logic, you could expect maintainers to fix packages/ports on
architectures they don't have computers of at hand, for instance,
sparc(64) or powerpc or amd64 in my case.

Basically what we see is a compiler complaint about the #line pragma
which apparently lacks a line number. I'm not sure what causes it.

For lack of other means, I suggest the following procedure, which needs
someone with access to proper hard/software (I don't have a spare
computer to install 8 on):

1. get db40

- update to 8-CURRENT
- install autoconf-2.62
- make sure the command "autoconf" in $PATH is 2.62, adjust PATH as needed
- cd /usr/ports/databases/db41
- "make depends patch"
- cd $(make -V WRKSRC)/dist
- sh s_config
- cd /usr/ports/databases/db41
- make

and see if it works. If it does, we can pull & run autoconf as a
dependency on 8-CURRENT for the port.

2. try to build db3, db40, db42 - db46 with just "cd
/usr/ports/databases/db... && make" (replace the ellipsis by the
version) and let me know which versions build and which don't. If
db45/db46 fail, Cc: its maintainer. If db3, db40 are failing on
8-CURRENT, I'll mark them broken, if newer ones fail, we'll see if we
can hack configure.

3. We should generally discuss if we should pick a newer db version as
default (and mark all older DEPRECATED and perhaps rather patch ports to
use a newer db version.

-- 
Matthias Andree