wxs at FreeBSD.org
Tue Aug 17 23:47:39 UTC 2010
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 02:47:59PM -0400, Dan Langille wrote:
> On 8/8/2010 10:59 PM, Dan Langille wrote:
> > Allan:
> > For Bacula 5.0.2 you submitted patches which included:
> > patch-src-cats-Makefile.in
> > patch-src-findlib-Makefile.in
> > patch-src-lib-Makefile.in
> > In particular, I'm interested in things like this (hugely condensed for
> > clarity):
> > - -release $(LIBBAC_LT_CURRENT).$(LIBBAC_LT_REVISION).$(LIBBAC_LT_AGE)
> > + -version-info $(LIBBAC_LT_CURRENT):$(LIBBAC_LT_REVISION):$(LIBBAC_LT_A
> > Of note, 5.0.3 uses this:
> > -release $(LIBBAC_LT_RELEASE)
> > I am not sure how best to patch for 5.0.3.
> > I first tried: version-info $(LIBBAC_LT_RELEASE)
> > But encountered this error:
> > Making libbac.la ...
> > /var/ports/usr/home/dan/src/sysutils/bacula-server/work/bacula-5.0.3/libtool
> > --silent --tag=CXX --mode=link /usr/bin/c++ -L/usr/local/lib -o
> > libbac.la attr.lo base64.lo berrno.lo bsys.lo bget_msg.lo bnet.lo
> > bnet_server.lo runscript.lo bsock.lo bpipe.lo bsnprintf.lo btime.lo
> > cram-md5.lo crc32.lo crypto.lo daemon.lo edit.lo fnmatch.lo
> > guid_to_name.lo hmac.lo jcr.lo lex.lo alist.lo dlist.lo md5.lo
> > message.lo mem_pool.lo openssl.lo plugins.lo priv.lo queue.lo bregex.lo
> > rwlock.lo scan.lo serial.lo sha1.lo signal.lo smartall.lo rblist.lo
> > tls.lo tree.lo util.lo var.lo watchdog.lo workq.lo btimers.lo
> > address_conf.lo breg.lo htable.lo lockmgr.lo -export-dynamic -rpath
> > /usr/local/lib -version-info 5.0.3 -lwrap -lz
> > libtool: link: CURRENT `5.0.3' must be a nonnegative integer
> > libtool: link: `5.0.3' is not valid version information
> > *** Error code 1
> > I don't know enough about your patch to proceed with confidence.
> I tried this solution:
> cd files
> rm patch-src-lib-Makefile.in patch-src-findlib-Makefile.in
> Then I removed all lib/* entries from pkg-plist and pkg-plist.client
> A sample test job ran just fine.
> However, this seems to undo the advances made in 5.0.2 regarding
> libaries. In 5.0.3 the libraries are named:
> Whereas, the 5.0.2 port assumes they are named like libbacpy-5.so
> So far, I see no reason not to proceed with my attached diff. But I
> welcome different opinions, if they have suggestions for patches.
Unfortunately I don't have the time right now to handle this, but I have
forwarded this mail to Olli Hauer (ohauer@) who will hopefully have the
time to take care of it. He has graciously stepped in to pick up the
Bacula related PRs on my plate.
More information about the freebsd-ports