-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: RIPEMD160 Jeff D wrote: > Matthew, > > On 10/30/07, Matthew Seaman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> This is a known problem with the apache22 port. At the moment it only >> understands about Berkeley DB versions up to 4.4.x -- there's an open >> ticket in the PR system which requests support for versions up to 4.6.x: >> http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/116637 >> >> Until that gets fixed, use BDB 4.4.x instead. To make that the default >> version on your system add this to /etc/make.conf: >> >> WITH_BDB_VER= 44 > > > Thanks for pointing this out. > > I'd thought that the port system in Freebsd was assured to be internally > consistent with all other stuff in the system by a central team (QA?). I > didn't realize that each port was from a different person, and that the > process could get held up for weeks or months.
Correct: there is a continual process of testing and compilation of ports for all supported OS versions and architectures. You can see the results here: http://pointyhat.freebsd.org/errorlogs/ and there's also http://portsmon.freebsd.org/index.html which summarises all of the known issues within the ports tree. However, due to resource limitations it's only ever the *default* set of options that are used when test-compiling any port. At the moment, the ports system uses databases/db41 (db41-4.1.25_4) as the default version of Berkeley DB -- you can find that out by reading /usr/ports/Mk/bsd.database.mk As to why db41 is still considered the default -- probably because no one has requested it be updated and there isn't a specific maintainer to take care of bsd.database.mk. In any case, changes to the ports infrastructure like that will require a test package build run before being committed, and that's not a trivial undertaking. There's a ports freeze coming up prior to the release of FreeBSD 6.3 and 7.0 so it's exceedingly unlikely to be changed in the next month or two. > I guess your advice is what I should do. I'm a little nervous about undoing > what's already been done, and think I might just start over with db44 to be > safe. Fear not. You can install several BDB ports for different versions of BDB simultaneously. No need to rip out any ports you've previously compiled against bdb46 and rebuild them. You can make just apache depend on bdb44 by a snippet like the following in /etc/make.conf: .if ${.CURDIR:M*/www/apache22} WITH_DBM= bdb WITH_BERKELEYDB= db44 .endif That's assuming you want to install apache-2.2.6 -- there are several other versions of apache in the tree, and you can use much the same sort of construct, just changing the 'www/apache22' bit, to apply options to those ports. See also the ports-mgmt/portconf port for a possibly more user friendly way of doing this sort of thing. > Knowing this now, I guess I should also make a list of the programs and > versions I need, and check each & every one for problems before I start > again. If something popular like the Apache Web Server has long standing > unresolved issues like this, other programs may too. I usually find that so long as I've accounted for anything from /usr/ports/UPDATING, then just trying to install or upgrade the port is successful 99 times out of 100. Only on the 100th time is it necessary to go hunting around in bug databases and so forth. The ports tree contains over 17,000 individual ports, maintained by a wide variety of volunteers or (in perhaps too many cases) without any particular person or group of people to maintain them at all. Despite this, over all the quality and consistency of ports is generally good. There will be occasional problems - -- and when these are reported, usually they are fixed with a great deal of dispatch. > A friend is pushing me to use Ubunutu Linux instead, saying that stuff like > this doesn't happen with it, but I'm not so convinced. After being 'sold' > on the Freebsd ports, it's worth some more reading. You friend is living in a dream world, I'm afraid. It is practically impossible to have zero problems in any large collection of software packages or ports like this. Ubuntu has it's points and a lot of people find it suits them very well, but to my mind it is best fitted to being a point'n'click style desktop for Windows refugees. FreeBSD (IMHO) is unbeaten as a serious Unix server platform, but to get the best out of it, you should not be afraid of getting to grips with command line interfaces. Cheers, Matthew - -- Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. Flat 3 7 Priory Courtyard PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate Kent, CT11 9PW, UK -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHJ1qe3jDkPpsZ+VYRA2V3AJ9zxEQQaEFWyPGGwH1atc7qI2R2iQCeNTOr Iix/fXpSc9+7o0oNm1wjUEM= =RxPZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
