On 2014/04/14 12:58, Fabian Raetz wrote:
> Hi ports@,
>
> I'm working on a update for databases/db/v4 in
> preparation for updating openbsd-wip/net/bitcoin.
>
>
> When running 'make package', i get the following
> Warnings/Errors for all files under /usr/local/share:
>
> +++ Sun Apr 13 22:26:43 CEST 2014
> ===> Building package for db-java-4.8.30p0v0
> Create /usr/packages/amd64/all/db-java-4.8.30p0v0.tgz
> [KError: no @owner for
> /usr/local/share/doc/db4/gsg/JAVA/BerkeleyDB-Core-JAVA-GSG.pdf (mischi)
> Warning: no @group for
> /usr/local/share/doc/db4/gsg/JAVA/BerkeleyDB-Core-JAVA-GSG.pdf (wsrc)
> Error: modes don't match for
> /usr/local/share/doc/db4/gsg/JAVA/BerkeleyDB-Core-JAVA-GSG.pdf
> [KError: no @owner for
> /usr/local/share/doc/db4/gsg/JAVA/CoreEnvUsage.html (mischi)
> Warning: no @group for
> /usr/local/share/doc/db4/gsg/JAVA/CoreEnvUsage.html (wsrc)
> Error: modes don't match for
> /usr/local/share/doc/db4/gsg/JAVA/CoreEnvUsage.html
> ....
> ....
> *** Error 1 in . (/usr/ports/infrastructure/mk/bsd.port.mk:1890
> '/usr/packages/amd64/all/db-java-4.8.30p0v0.tgz')
> *** Error 2 in . (/usr/ports/infrastructure/mk/bsd.port.mk:2439
> '_internal-package')
> *** Error 2 in /usr/ports/databases/db/v4
> (/usr/ports/infrastructure/mk/bsd.port.mk:2419 'package')
> --- Sun Apr 13 22:26:47 CEST 2014
>
> Any ideas what's missing or what i messed up on my system?
These should be owned by ${SHAREOWN}:${SHAREGRP} and check that the modes
are sane.
I think we could just remove the API and programmer references docs
though, they aren't useful to most users, and those who do find
them useful should be capable of looking in the source distribution
themselves.
> Here's the diff. But be aware that the diff is not yet
> finished ...
Other things to think about:
- what do users need to do for the upgrade - is it just "log file format
change" or also "database format change"? we will need to document the
steps needed, and probably add @ask-update and an faq/current.html section.
- db updates are fairly likely to break other ports; fortunately it's
a lot less common dependency than last time it was updated in ports,
so shouldn't be as bad, but definitely needs testing - I can probably
help with build tests etc for this.
- it will need testing on a wide spread of machine architectures.
