On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 04:21:00PM +0200, Kimmo Paasiala wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 3:57 PM, Olli Hauer <oha...@freebsd.org> wrote:
> > On 2012-12-27 09:38, Dewayne Geraghty wrote:
> >> While trying to build apache22 with ldap, the dependency apr1 passes a
> >> "--without-ldap" flag to apr-util which results in apache
> >> failing.
> >>
> >> * Background *
> >> Some 450+ packages are built on a 4 monthly cycle, 149 of these are
> >> controlled by ports.conf and built using portmaster. This is the
> >> second time since 2005 that I've been stuck and would appreciate some
> >> advice/guidance whether the problem lies with something in apr
> >> that I am missing, or the use of ${UNIQUENAME}_SET doesn't work with new
> >> OPTIONS_GROUP?
> >>
> >> We used a script to modify our ports.conf to accommodate the new optionng
> >> _SET and _UNSET which worked nicely last time ports were
> >> built.
> >>
> >> These are the relevant options from ports.conf
> >> devel/apr1: WITH_THREADS | WITH_BDB | WITH_LDAP | WITHOUT_GDBM |
> >> APR1_UNSET=GDBM | APR1_SET=THREADS BDB LDAP
> > [...]
> >
> > I suspect here is the mistake
> > $> cd devel/apr1
> > $> make -V UNIQUENAME
> > apr (-> not apr1)
> >
> > I don't work with portmaster (happy tinderbox user ;).
> > Can you try the following line in your ports.conf
> >
> > file ports.conf: devel/apr1: WITH_THREADS | WITH_BDB | WITH_LDAP |
> > WITHOUT_GDBM | APR_UNSET=GDBM | APR_SET=THREADS BDB LDAP
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> > olli
>
>
> Is there any particular reason why the UNIQUENAME couldn't just be the
> name of the port in all cases? I would make writing the options in
> optionsng format lot easier.
>
> -Kimmothis is to avoid collision: lang/perl5.12 and lang/perl5.10 both have the same name while the uniquename is different and user may want to have different options set for both. FYI the uniquename was already used with the old famework. regards Bapt
pgpHjSycNd160.pgp
Description: PGP signature
