Re: ports/189880: port pgpool-II out of date.
Hi! Now, who's in charge to merge all your recommendations ? Michelle ? I'll give it a try this evening to merge them. -- p...@opsec.eu+49 171 3101372 6 years to go ! ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: ports/189880: port pgpool-II out of date.
Hi!
matthew@ wrote:
There's a number of things wrong with this port, some inherited from the
pgpool-II port you copied, and some where you're using outmoded constructs.
[...]
- Use options helpers rather than if $(PORT_OPTIONS:MFoo). Eg.
instead of
.if ${PORT_OPTIONS:MSSL}
USE_OPENSSL=yes
CONFIGURE_ARGS+=--with-openssl
.endif
use:
SSL_CONFIGURE_WITH=openssl
SSL_USE= OPENSSL=YES
and similarly for the PAM option.
I tried this for PAM:
PAM_CONFIGURE_WITH+=pam
PAM_USE=PAM=yes
and config.log contains
#define USE_PAM 1
even if the PAM option is not selected.
This leads to the compile failing for pool_hba.c with some pam-related error,
see
http://people.freebsd.org/~pi/misc/pgpool-pam-error.txt
The other method worked. Do you have any idea why that happens ?
- The port cannot be staged as a non-root user. This is due to the
way the contrib Makefiles are written -- although elsewhere it
uses standard autoconf stuff, which pretty much just works for
staging purposes.
I'm unsure what you mean with the contrib Makefiles ?
You refer to the
cd ${WRKSRC}/sql/${f} ${GMAKE} \
STAGEDIR=${STAGEDIR} \
PREFIX=${PREFIX} \
${INSTALL_TARGET}
construct in target post-install ?
--
p...@freebsd.org +49 171 3101372 6 years to go
!
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: ports/189880: port pgpool-II out of date.
On 17/06/2014 20:09, Kurt Jaeger wrote:
Hi!
matthew@ wrote:
There's a number of things wrong with this port, some inherited from the
pgpool-II port you copied, and some where you're using outmoded constructs.
[...]
- Use options helpers rather than if $(PORT_OPTIONS:MFoo). Eg.
instead of
.if ${PORT_OPTIONS:MSSL}
USE_OPENSSL=yes
CONFIGURE_ARGS+=--with-openssl
.endif
use:
SSL_CONFIGURE_WITH=openssl
SSL_USE= OPENSSL=YES
and similarly for the PAM option.
I tried this for PAM:
PAM_CONFIGURE_WITH+=pam
PAM_USE=PAM=yes
and config.log contains
#define USE_PAM 1
even if the PAM option is not selected.
You don't need += there -- just plain =
That should have resulted in configure being called with the argument
--with-pam or --without-pam according to the option setting. One of
those config.foo files it generates should have the command line that
was used. There are a number of variations on the CONFIGURE options
helpers -- read the comments in /usr/ports/Mk/bsd.options.mk for the
gory details.
This leads to the compile failing for pool_hba.c with some pam-related error,
see
http://people.freebsd.org/~pi/misc/pgpool-pam-error.txt
The other method worked. Do you have any idea why that happens ?
Looks like it isn't calling configure with quite the right commandline.
- The port cannot be staged as a non-root user. This is due to the
way the contrib Makefiles are written -- although elsewhere it
uses standard autoconf stuff, which pretty much just works for
staging purposes.
I'm unsure what you mean with the contrib Makefiles ?
You refer to the
cd ${WRKSRC}/sql/${f} ${GMAKE} \
STAGEDIR=${STAGEDIR} \
PREFIX=${PREFIX} \
${INSTALL_TARGET}
construct in target post-install ?
Yes -- that's what I mean. If you try running 'make stage' as a
non-root user, you'll see where it tries to run 'install -o root ...'
(which doesn't work).
Cheers,
Matthew
--
Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil.
PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: ports/189880: port pgpool-II out of date.
Hi!
I tried this for PAM:
PAM_CONFIGURE_WITH+=pam
PAM_USE=PAM=yes
[...]
You don't need += there -- just plain =
That '+' does not make a difference, I tried both versions.
That should have resulted in configure being called with the argument
--with-pam or --without-pam according to the option setting.
Olli Hauer wrote in private mail:
some buggy configure scripts are setting an option to on if they
get an --without-foo as argument but setting the build option to
off by default.
try with only an explizit opt_foo_on=--with-foo and without foo_off
and look if this is working.
i dont remember the ports but was running in this issue last year.
So it seems there are cases where this happens.
- The port cannot be staged as a non-root user. This is due to the
way the contrib Makefiles are written -- although elsewhere it
uses standard autoconf stuff, which pretty much just works for
staging purposes.
I'm unsure what you mean with the contrib Makefiles ?
You refer to the
cd ${WRKSRC}/sql/${f} ${GMAKE} \
STAGEDIR=${STAGEDIR} \
PREFIX=${PREFIX} \
${INSTALL_TARGET}
construct in target post-install ?
Yes -- that's what I mean. If you try running 'make stage' as a
non-root user, you'll see where it tries to run 'install -o root ...'
(which doesn't work).
I'll dig further, but not this evening 8-}
--
p...@freebsd.org +49 171 3101372 6 years to go
!
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: ports/189880: port pgpool-II out of date.
On 15/06/2014 22:49, Michelle Sullivan wrote: Personally I think: databases/pgpool (3.1.x) databases/pgpool-devel (3.3.x) Given the lack of history in the ports, I'd say lets just skip pgpool-II-3.2 Agreed. (effectively already done) Except that pgpool-II-3.3.3 is a stable release version, and not what would normally be considered a 'development' version. In principle for anyone wanting to install pgpool-II for the first time the choice should be to use version 3.3.3. I think there's a 3.4 branch that would qualify for pgpool-II-devel if anyone wanted to write that port. Also, the established name does seem to be 'pgpool-II' despite the 'II' being an ersatz version number. However, this is orthogonal to getting 3.3.3 into the tree in the first place. Why don't we proceed with adding a databases/pgpool-II-33 port now, and deal with indicating which one is the default and whether some of the older versions should be removed as a separate item later? Cheers, Matthew -- Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: ports/189880: port pgpool-II out of date.
Matthew Seaman wrote: On 15/06/2014 22:49, Michelle Sullivan wrote: Personally I think: databases/pgpool (3.1.x) databases/pgpool-devel (3.3.x) Given the lack of history in the ports, I'd say lets just skip pgpool-II-3.2 Agreed. (effectively already done) Except that pgpool-II-3.3.3 is a stable release version, and not what would normally be considered a 'development' version. In principle for anyone wanting to install pgpool-II for the first time the choice should be to use version 3.3.3. I think there's a 3.4 branch that would qualify for pgpool-II-devel if anyone wanted to write that port. Also, the established name does seem to be 'pgpool-II' despite the 'II' being an ersatz version number. It caught me out on more than one occasion (and I should know better) However, this is orthogonal to getting 3.3.3 into the tree in the first place. Why don't we proceed with adding a databases/pgpool-II-33 port now, and deal with indicating which one is the default and whether some of the older versions should be removed as a separate item later? That was the reason I added it as a new port ;-) Michelle -- Michelle Sullivan http://www.mhix.org/ ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: ports/189880: port pgpool-II out of date.
Hi! Can someone take a look at 189880 please... been a few weeks now, still not heard from the maintainer. It took a while to get it building in poudriere without side effects. Now prepared as new port databases/pgpool-II-33. Please test and approve. Second step: merging the diverse set of pgpool related ports into one ? -- p...@opsec.eu+49 171 3101372 6 years to go ! ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: ports/189880: port pgpool-II out of date.
Kurt Jaeger wrote: Hi! Can someone take a look at 189880 please... been a few weeks now, still not heard from the maintainer. It took a while to get it building in poudriere without side effects. Now prepared as new port databases/pgpool-II-33. Please test and approve. Second step: merging the diverse set of pgpool related ports into one ? Maybe pg-pool-II and pg-pool-devel...? (3.1/2 in stable and 3.3 in devel - until it changes?) Michelle -- Michelle Sullivan http://www.mhix.org/ ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: ports/189880: port pgpool-II out of date.
Hi! Second step: merging the diverse set of pgpool related ports into one ? Maybe pg-pool-II and pg-pool-devel...? (3.1/2 in stable and 3.3 in devel - until it changes?) I assume that all the pgpool ports can be consolidated into one (3.3). Maybe if we start by DEPRECATing the old ones to find out who still wants them ? Bcc to kuriyama... -- p...@opsec.eu+49 171 3101372 6 years to go ! ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: ports/189880: port pgpool-II out of date.
Heh. I was just starting to look at writing a pgpool-II-33 port, but it
seems you have beaten me to it.
On 15/06/2014 15:29, Kurt Jaeger wrote:
Hi!
Second step: merging the diverse set of pgpool related ports into one ?
Maybe pg-pool-II and pg-pool-devel...? (3.1/2 in stable and 3.3 in
devel - until it changes?)
pgpool-II has 3 stable releases at the moment 3.1.10, 3.2.8, 3.3.3
which are all still receiving updates.
I assume that all the pgpool ports can be consolidated into one (3.3).
Maybe if we start by DEPRECATing the old ones to find out who
still wants them ? Bcc to kuriyama...
There's a number of things wrong with this port, some inherited from the
pgpool-II port you copied, and some where you're using outmoded constructs.
- You should probably have USES+=pgsql and WANT_PGSQL=client rather
than USE_PGSQL.
- You don't need the empty CONFIGURE_ARGS= and LIB_DEPENDS=
assignments.
- Install docs unconditionally to staging rather than examining the
state of the DOCS option. Whether docs get installed finally is
handled in the post-staging steps.
- Use options helpers rather than if $(PORT_OPTIONS:MFoo). Eg.
instead of
.if ${PORT_OPTIONS:MSSL}
USE_OPENSSL=yes
CONFIGURE_ARGS+=--with-openssl
.endif
use:
SSL_CONFIGURE_WITH=openssl
SSL_USE= OPENSSL=YES
and similarly for the PAM option.
(You used helpers for LIBMEMCACHED stuff but not the others?)
You can then dispense with '.include bsd.port.options.mk' line
- The port cannot be staged as a non-root user. This is due to the
way the contrib Makefiles are written -- although elsewhere it
uses standard autoconf stuff, which pretty much just works for
staging purposes.
Probably the best way to fix this is to use ${INSTALL_LIB}
or ${INSTALL_DATA} directly from the port's Makefile and bypass
that install target entirely. It's only 6 files in total
affected by this.
- The .if exists(...) section has the same effect in either branch
of the .if statement. You can just make that bit unconditional
- There's a duplicated entry in the CONFLICTS line
- portlint complains about the wrong sort of whitespace in the
WWW: line in pkg-descr
- You can make libtool automatically strip shared libraries on
installation by adding:
MAKE_ENV= INSTALL_STRIP_FLAG=${STRIP}
This respects local debug settings, so users can build and
install an unstripped version if they so desire.
Cheers,
Matthew
--
Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil.
PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: ports/189880: port pgpool-II out of date.
Hello, Heh. I was just starting to look at writing a pgpool-II-33 port, but it seems you have beaten me to it. Well, and you provided a thorough review, thanks for that! Now, who's in charge to merge all your recommendations ? Michelle ? Second step: merging the diverse set of pgpool related ports into one ? Maybe pg-pool-II and pg-pool-devel...? (3.1/2 in stable and 3.3 in devel - until it changes?) pgpool-II has 3 stable releases at the moment 3.1.10, 3.2.8, 3.3.3 which are all still receiving updates. Do you think that all three are still used by the ports users community ? I assume that all the pgpool ports can be consolidated into one (3.3). Maybe if we start by DEPRECATing the old ones to find out who still wants them ? Bcc to kuriyama... There's a number of things wrong with this port, some inherited from the pgpool-II port you copied, and some where you're using outmoded constructs. [lots of good hints] -- p...@opsec.eu+49 171 3101372 6 years to go ! ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: ports/189880: port pgpool-II out of date.
On 15/06/2014 17:11, Kurt Jaeger wrote: Hello, Heh. I was just starting to look at writing a pgpool-II-33 port, but it seems you have beaten me to it. Well, and you provided a thorough review, thanks for that! Now, who's in charge to merge all your recommendations ? Michelle ? I'll happily work on getting this port committed -- certainly ping me for technical review etc. But I don't want to steal it from you if you're keen to deal with committing it, or to take the port away from Michelle given the work she's already put into it. Second step: merging the diverse set of pgpool related ports into one ? Maybe pg-pool-II and pg-pool-devel...? (3.1/2 in stable and 3.3 in devel - until it changes?) pgpool-II has 3 stable releases at the moment 3.1.10, 3.2.8, 3.3.3 which are all still receiving updates. Do you think that all three are still used by the ports users community ? Well, to be pedantic about it: precisely one of those versions is in use by ports users, as those other ports don't exist yet. Whether there's a demand for ports of all of those pgpool-II versions, or we should just skip to the latest, is the real question. Given the lack of history in the ports, I'd say lets just skip pgpool-II-3.2 and upgrade the existing pgpool-II port to pgpool-II-3.3.3. The older pgpool-II ports (and pgpool-I for that matter) could probably be deprecated now with a longish (say 6 month) expiry time, but that's something for kuriyama@ to decide. I don't think there's any particular reason to have ports of all the different pgpool-II branches in tree, BICBW. If there are major bits of functionality dropped or changed incompatibly between those branches, then obviously we'd have to reconsider. Cheers, Matthew -- Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: ports/189880: port pgpool-II out of date.
Matthew Seaman wrote: On 15/06/2014 17:11, Kurt Jaeger wrote: Hello, Heh. I was just starting to look at writing a pgpool-II-33 port, but it seems you have beaten me to it. Well, and you provided a thorough review, thanks for that! Now, who's in charge to merge all your recommendations ? Michelle ? I'll happily work on getting this port committed -- certainly ping me for technical review etc. But I don't want to steal it from you if you're keen to deal with committing it, or to take the port away from Michelle given the work she's already put into it. I did it because I needed it ;-) - if you want to help me (this is actually the first port I had done) I'm all for that... I just wanted my email address in the ports tree for the spammers ;-) Second step: merging the diverse set of pgpool related ports into one ? Maybe pg-pool-II and pg-pool-devel...? (3.1/2 in stable and 3.3 in devel - until it changes?) pgpool-II has 3 stable releases at the moment 3.1.10, 3.2.8, 3.3.3 which are all still receiving updates. Do you think that all three are still used by the ports users community ? Well, to be pedantic about it: precisely one of those versions is in use by ports users, as those other ports don't exist yet. Whether there's a demand for ports of all of those pgpool-II versions, or we should just skip to the latest, is the real question. Personally I think: databases/pgpool (3.1.x) databases/pgpool-devel (3.3.x) Given the lack of history in the ports, I'd say lets just skip pgpool-II-3.2 Agreed. (effectively already done) and upgrade the existing pgpool-II port to pgpool-II-3.3.3. The older pgpool-II ports (and pgpool-I for that matter) could probably be deprecated now with a longish (say 6 month) expiry time, but that's something for kuriyama@ to decide. Personally - pgpool-II (3.1.6) and pgpool-II-devel (3.3.3+ - and 3.4 when it comes out) There is reason to keep the last version of pgpool-I ... but move it to pgpool-I (or pgpool-v2) and mark it as 'no further developement' (as I think that's true) I don't think there's any particular reason to have ports of all the different pgpool-II branches in tree, BICBW. If there are major bits of functionality dropped or changed incompatibly between those branches, then obviously we'd have to reconsider. +1 -- Michelle Sullivan http://www.mhix.org/ ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: ports/189880: port pgpool-II out of date.
Can someone take a look at 189880 please... been a few weeks now, still not heard from the maintainer. Thanks Michelle freebsd-gnats-sub...@freebsd.org wrote: Thank you very much for your problem report. It has the internal identification `ports/189880'. The individual assigned to look at your report is: freebsd-ports-bugs. You can access the state of your problem report at any time via this link: http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=189880 Category: ports Responsible:freebsd-ports-bugs Synopsis: port pgpool-II out of date. Arrival-Date: Sat May 17 02:20:00 UTC 2014 -- Michelle Sullivan http://www.mhix.org/ ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
