On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 02:47:59PM -0400, Dan Langille wrote: > On 8/8/2010 10:59 PM, Dan Langille wrote: > > Allan: > > > > For Bacula 5.0.2 you submitted patches which included: > > > > patch-src-cats-Makefile.in > > patch-src-findlib-Makefile.in > > patch-src-lib-Makefile.in > > > > In particular, I'm interested in things like this (hugely condensed for > > clarity): > > > > - -release $(LIBBAC_LT_CURRENT).$(LIBBAC_LT_REVISION).$(LIBBAC_LT_AGE) > > + -version-info $(LIBBAC_LT_CURRENT):$(LIBBAC_LT_REVISION):$(LIBBAC_LT_A > > > > Of note, 5.0.3 uses this: > > > > -release $(LIBBAC_LT_RELEASE) > > > > I am not sure how best to patch for 5.0.3. > > > > I first tried: version-info $(LIBBAC_LT_RELEASE) > > > > But encountered this error: > > > > Making libbac.la ... > > /var/ports/usr/home/dan/src/sysutils/bacula-server/work/bacula-5.0.3/libtool > > --silent --tag=CXX --mode=link /usr/bin/c++ -L/usr/local/lib -o > > libbac.la attr.lo base64.lo berrno.lo bsys.lo bget_msg.lo bnet.lo > > bnet_server.lo runscript.lo bsock.lo bpipe.lo bsnprintf.lo btime.lo > > cram-md5.lo crc32.lo crypto.lo daemon.lo edit.lo fnmatch.lo > > guid_to_name.lo hmac.lo jcr.lo lex.lo alist.lo dlist.lo md5.lo > > message.lo mem_pool.lo openssl.lo plugins.lo priv.lo queue.lo bregex.lo > > rwlock.lo scan.lo serial.lo sha1.lo signal.lo smartall.lo rblist.lo > > tls.lo tree.lo util.lo var.lo watchdog.lo workq.lo btimers.lo > > address_conf.lo breg.lo htable.lo lockmgr.lo -export-dynamic -rpath > > /usr/local/lib -version-info 5.0.3 -lwrap -lz > > libtool: link: CURRENT `5.0.3' must be a nonnegative integer > > libtool: link: `5.0.3' is not valid version information > > *** Error code 1 > > > > > > I don't know enough about your patch to proceed with confidence. > > I tried this solution: > > cd files > rm patch-src-lib-Makefile.in patch-src-findlib-Makefile.in > patch-src-cats-Makefile.in > > Then I removed all lib/* entries from pkg-plist and pkg-plist.client > > A sample test job ran just fine. > > However, this seems to undo the advances made in 5.0.2 regarding > libaries. In 5.0.3 the libraries are named: > > libbac-5.0.3.so > libbacpy-5.0.3.so > > etc. > > Whereas, the 5.0.2 port assumes they are named like libbacpy-5.so > > So far, I see no reason not to proceed with my attached diff. But I > welcome different opinions, if they have suggestions for patches.
Unfortunately I don't have the time right now to handle this, but I have forwarded this mail to Olli Hauer (ohauer@) who will hopefully have the time to take care of it. He has graciously stepped in to pick up the Bacula related PRs on my plate. -- WXS _______________________________________________ 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"
