FreeBSD Port: samba34-3.4.14

[Da Rock]

On 04/10/12 09:12, Chuck Swiger wrote:
> Hi--
>
> On Apr 9, 2012, at 4:01 PM, Da Rock wrote:
>> 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?
> If you think there is a missing dependency, then doing send-pr with the fix is a reasonable procedure.

I was only thinking the maintainer might want to know and fix and test 
themselves before commit. I know I would as a maintainer.

> However, you might first want to look into what was different in your case from pointyhat, since the builds of samba-3.x worked fine:
>
>    http://pointyhat.freebsd.org/errorlogs/amd64-9-latest-logs/samba34-3.4.14.log
>    http://pointyhat.freebsd.org/errorlogs/amd64-9-latest-logs/samba35-3.5.11.log
>    http://pointyhat.freebsd.org/errorlogs/amd64-9-latest-logs/samba36-3.6.3.log

Hmmm. You're right.

I can narrow it down to the SWAT or AIO option (most likely given the 
obvious network connection there), but it could be ADS, ACL, or FAM; but 
I doubt that very much. You have me intrigued now, I have to look into 
it to know :)

So what should the patch look like? Am I correct in my understanding of 
the BUILD_DEPENDS, or have I chased a goose on that one?