On 11/5/2013 11:13 AM, William Grzybowski wrote:
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Dominic Fandrey <kamik...@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@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@ !!!
_______________________________________________
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"
