On 13/07/2014 15:05, Michelle Sullivan wrote: > 1/ when would the new version be deployed to FreeBSD ports? (does it > need an update or is it automatic? - there might be a _02 or 1.66 patch > soon)
That's up to the port maintainer. Most active maintainers will pull in
updates from upstream fairly promptly -- within a week or so. If not,
then you can make it easy for them by putting in a PR with the diffs
necessary to update the port.
> 2/ is it possible (in my patch here) to only show the option if
> particular databases are installed (for example for MySQL users the
> patch makes little to no difference (except for the lag issues) -
> however it potentially has a huge difference for Oracle and PostgreSQL
> users.)
In this case, no, not really. It's not considered correct for a port to
behave differently depending on what else is installed -- or to put it
in other words, it's the selected options that should be the only thing
that affets the outcome of building the port.
Remember too that a substantial amount of ports usage nowadays is by
binary packages installed from clean-room builds: unless you'ld declared
a dependency on some particular RDBMS, then you'ld either have no DB
installed at all, or whatever the default DB was for every build.
Of course, if you wanted to code the patch so that it could behave
differently at run-time depending on what type of database it was being
used with, that would be a different matter, and quite likely something
you'ld have to persuade the upstream authors about.
Cheers,
Matthew
--
Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil.
PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
