Heimdal 1.5.2 problem

[Robert Simmons]

On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 12:56 PM, Wesley Shields <wxs at freebsd.org> wrote:
> On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 12:21:54PM -0400, Robert Simmons wrote:
>> On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 8:38 PM, Wesley Shields <wxs at freebsd.org> wrote:
>> > On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 06:29:20PM -0400, Robert Simmons wrote:
>> >> On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 5:14 PM, Wesley Shields <wxs at freebsd.org> wrote:
>> >> > On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 03:08:31PM -0400, Robert Simmons wrote:
>> >> >> On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 8:57 AM, Wesley Shields <wxs at freebsd.org> wrote:
>> >> >> > As the person who committed this update I will take responsibility for
>> >> >> > seeing this through. Would you mind opening a PR with this patch and CC
>> >> >> > both myself and the maintainer so it can be properly tracked. I will
>> >> >> > work with both of you to make sure it is addressed.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I got some good feedback about the patch. ?I was missing a "\". ?Also,
>> >> >> it was noted that I shouldn't make changes to the default settings in
>> >> >> this patch since it is meant to correct a problem. ?I removed the
>> >> >> change to default.
>> >> >
>> >> > I'm not opposed to removing the change to the default, but it does cause
>> >> > another problem. See below.
>> >> >
>> >> >> Perhaps the different default is not the best solution. ?Maybe there
>> >> >> should be a message that at least one backend is needed for the port
>> >> >> to function, but none have been selected by default?
>> >> >
>> >> > If a backend is required the port should refuse to build if no backend
>> >> > is selected. This is pretty easy to do, just check for at least one of
>> >> > the backends. I have no idea if multiple backends can be supported so
>> >> > you may or may not want to also check for that.
>> >>
>> >> I may have been too hasty. ?I've thought of a situation where one
>> >> would want to build the port with no backend at all. ?If one wanted to
>> >> use the tools in the port to administrate a remote install of Heimdal,
>> >> they may want to build it without a backend.
>> >>
>> >> My initial thoughts were only for installing the port as a Heimdal
>> >> server, and with the --with-berkeley-db=no problem fixed it does not
>> >> wrongly find the version of BDB in the base OS. ?With this fix, the
>> >> port can function with no backends selected. ?It just won't be able to
>> >> function in a server capacity.
>> >>
>> >> I am also not an expert in Heimdal, I just installed it from source
>> >> via its own instructions and compared that with what the FreeBSD port
>> >> was doing. ?I'd wait for the maintainer to make changes to the default
>> >> behavior for the above reason.
>> >
>> > This all sounds perfectly reasonable to me. :)
>> >
>> > If I'm understanding you correctly the patch[1] in ports/168214 is the
>> > correct one to commit. The only change I would make is not bumping
>> > PORTREVISION since the option is off by default. Sounds like the only
>> > thing left to do is wait for maintainer comment on the PR and commit
>> > accordingly.
>>
>> Sounds good.  One question: what do you mean by PORTREVISION being off
>> by default?
>
> There is no need to bump PORTREVISION because the option which you are
> changing is off by default so there's no need to force a rebuild of it
> on the package cluster since your changes are going to have no effect
> there.
>
> For those that have the option to on, it hasn't built properly for them
> yet so bumping is going to have no effect either.

I understand what you're saying.  However, my change would actually
change the package cluster.  Because those packages were built with
"--without-berkeley-db" rather than "--with-berkeley-db=no" the old
packages were built with broken BDB support by accident.  By fixing
this, the default package is actually going to be different than the
one built before this change.  I would recommend bumping PORTREVISION
because of this.