Logcheck dependency hell

[n j]

Hi Greg,

On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 10:13 PM, Greg Larkin <glarkin at freebsd.org> wrote:
> I'm the maintainer of security/logcheck, and I apologize for not
> catching up with my inbox sooner.  I just saw your message, and the same
> issue was reported by someone else a couple of weeks ago.

sorry if the subject (the "hell" part) has been too harsh, it was just
a figure of speech. Thanks for the work put in the port and the patch
and no need to apologize, the response time is totally acceptable for
the price I pay the port maintainer :-). And as far as free support
goes, I would like to thank Mel for the detailed help and the pointer
to the miscreant (Mk/bsd.port.mk).

> I have it on my list to update the port to avoid using docbook-to-man.

I've been looking to do the same and came across docbook2x
(http://docbook2x.sourceforge.net/) which seems to be just
perl-dependent - perhaps that might be used instead of the
docbook-to-man. However, it's not in the ports tree and the
development seems to be stalled (last release March 2007).
http://www.linux.org/docs/ldp/howto/DocBook-Install/using.html#AEN600
shows how to install and use it, though.

> In the mean, please apply the attached patch to your Makefile, and it
> will prevent all of those deps from getting included in the build.

I haven't had the time yet to test it, but as soon as I get to
installing logcheck with your patch, I'll let you know the results.

> Also, please cc the port maintainer when reporting a port-related bug to
> freebsd-questions@, since not all of them follow the list. The easy way

Well, I'm not really what you'd call a port-guru to easily claim
dependency a bug and bother the maintainer, especially since I
couldn't find an easy way to locate what pulls that dependency to file
a useful bug report, but I'll follow your advice in the future.

Regards,
-- 
Nino