FreeBSD Port: samba34-3.4.14
Da Rock
freebsd-ports at herveybayaustralia.com.au
Mon Apr 9 23:02:00 UTC 2012
On 04/08/12 09:59, Da Rock wrote:
> On 04/08/12 00:02, Chris Rees wrote:
>> On 7 April 2012 13:51, Da
>> Rock<freebsd-ports at herveybayaustralia.com.au> wrote:
>>> On 04/06/12 13:20, Timur I. Bakeyev wrote:
>>>> Hi!
>>>>
>>>> Can you show the build output? Port should't directly dipend from
>>>> anything like this.
>>> Sorry, it was on a clients system and I couldn't get the info
>>> across. I can
>>> only say for sure that installing libnet fixed the issue.
>>>
>>> The build error was an undeclared function or const (most likely
>>> const) that
>>> was supplied by libnet.
>>>
>>> Sorry I can't tell you any more information; I emailed this to
>>> notify of the
>>> fix, and for others if they come across the issue in the future.
>>> Googling
>>> was what put me on to this fix as well.
>> If you could give some idea of the site that advised this, that could
>> probably help too.
>
> Again, my apologies. Let me try this again and see if I can be a
> little more organised with my description.
>
> This was a clean, fresh install on an amd64 (Atom cpu, although I did
> try on a real cpu too). I tried 3.6 first, it didn't build. Then I
> tried 3.5, when that didn't work (same error) I looked at the handbook
> and it was still on 3.4, and during my googling I noticed that there
> could be an issue with incompatibility with the libsmbclient; so I
> reverted to 3.4. It didn't build either, and they all had the same error.
>
> So I googled some more on this error, but there wasn't much on it at
> all. I did notice a lot of comments on samba, tdb, and libnet, and
> there was a clue in the error of a libnet dependency (sorry I just
> can't remember, so much has happened in the 24 hr period); so I tried
> installing libnet and then built samba 3.4 (to avoid further issues
> and conflicts) and presto! it all built.
>
> That was the day prior to my post, and I figured someone could run a
> clean build and find this as well; failing that, someone would come
> across this again in the future. As you can see it wasn't anything in
> particular that set me on this, just a hunch I followed and lucked out
> on a resolution, but it worked :)
>
> I hope that helps someone...
To drag this up again, I was thinking about the number of cases I've
found like this recently, and I was considering what the most
appropriate action to take here. This one is obviously controversial,
and I didn't have the time to do more or test further, but for future
reference I'd like some clarification.
I'd say a PR is not really appropriate as a response to an issue such as
this (unless the maintainer offers no response at all), but should I
create a patch to assist the maintainer? Or is that over doing it?
If I were to create a patch, what is the correct (usable) procedure? And
for something like this it would be an adjustment to BUILD_DEPENDS, correct?
Thanks for the clarification guys.
More information about the freebsd-ports
mailing list