Is it or isn't it installed? (It is, but ports tries to again, doomed to fail.)

[Kimmo Paasiala]

On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 8:09 AM, Chad J. Milios <milios at ccsys.com> wrote:
>
> On 11/5/2013 11:13 AM, William Grzybowski wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Dominic Fandrey <kamikaze at bsdforen.de>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 05/11/2013 14:55, Chad J. Milios wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snip>...
>>>>
>>>> Just happen to already have the dependency devel/py-boto
>>>> (py27-boto-2.14.0) or devel/py-pyzmq (py27-pyzmq-2.2.0) installed (and their
>>>> port dirs since cleaned up) when you try to install net/py-kombu
>>>> (py27-kombu-3.0.1) from ports with BOTO and/or ZMQ options. (In my case I
>>>> have all its options on.)
>>>> ...<snip>...
>>>>
>>>>      Stop in /usr/ports/net/py-kombu.
>>>>      root at shikamaru:/usr/ports/net/py-kombu #
>>>
>>> That looks like the dependencies in net/py-kombu are broken. I.e. they
>>> refer to files that are not/no longer installed by the dependencies.
>
>
> Actually, Dominic, the dependencies were referred to using the
> package_name/version_spec functionality rather than checking the existence
> of a target file. There was an error with the way the version requirement
> was specified which William has since fixed.
>
>
>> Did you get my email asking to try again after the last port update
>> fixing the dependencies?
>>
> YUP! Sure did fix it, William. THANK YOU for the super-quick response and
> fix. Sorry it took me this long to get around to a re-test for you. It looks
> like your fix did the trick:
>
> 28c28
> < BOTO_RUN_DEPENDS=
> ${PYTHON_PKGNAMEPREFIX}boto=>2.6.0:${PORTSDIR}/devel/py-boto
> ---
>> BOTO_RUN_DEPENDS=
>> ${PYTHON_PKGNAMEPREFIX}boto>=2.6.0:${PORTSDIR}/devel/py-boto
> 32c32
> < ZMQ_RUN_DEPENDS=
> ${PYTHON_PKGNAMEPREFIX}pyzmq=>2.2.0:${PORTSDIR}/devel/py-pyzmq
> ---
>> ZMQ_RUN_DEPENDS=
>> ${PYTHON_PKGNAMEPREFIX}pyzmq>=2.2.0:${PORTSDIR}/devel/py-pyzmq
>
> Anyone spot the subtle difference? Darn. That went right under my nose.
>
> Seems like a mistake anyone could make, with all the syntaxen floating
> around in one's head. I for one think it would be nice if make failed more
> spectacularly at the point it hits the =>. Is there any legal use of => in
> make? It seems that every occurrence of => in the ports tree is now either
> just part of some inlined perl code, part of human-readable text output or
> in a comment. Food for thought: I wonder what make is "thinking" at that
> point of parsing and executing. Can the make makers make make see that as an
> immediate syntax error without a drastic change that breaks Makefiles
> potentially in the wild? A question for far greater minds than I. Prolly
> already wudda if they cudda. Oh well, just another make gotcha for everyone
> to remember to watch out for.
>
> Thanks again WG@ for fixing my issue within half an hour of my mail to
> freebsd-ports@ !!!
>
>

I don't think that make(1) is actually evaluating those conditions but
/bin/sh is. I can not find any mention in make(1) about arithmetic
operators.

-Kimmo