Berkeley DB cleanup has apparently broken ports where no db is currently installed

Doug Barton dougb at dougbarton.us
Thu Dec 26 08:56:46 UTC 2013


On 12/26/2013 12:41 AM, Matthias Andree wrote:
> I disagree on the assessments of efforts here. I checked the docs,
> and the actual .db files are supposed to be compatible,

Sure, they are, to some extent, SUPPOSED to be compatible. Experience 
tells us that is not the case.

> excepting the
> corner cases mentioned in the wiki. The manual effort only exists for
> ports using BDB in transactional mode, while most ports just use it
> as a key-value data vault.

So you're volunteering to walk every user whose stuff gets broken 
through the repair?

> Ttbomk, deprecated does not cause build failures, and even if so,
> WITH_BDB_VER=5 would fix that.

portmaster treats DEPRECATED as a fatal error. I did neglect to point 
that out in my previous post however.

> Finally, I would like to see technical or other_compelling_  reasons
> why we would need 48 in the tree in the future.

Well shouldn't that argument go the other way around? Shouldn't the 
people proposing the purge be the ones to provide _compelling_ reasons 
to do the purge?

Doug


More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list