Bug 93626 - [patch] net/samba3 net/samba-libsmbclient: libsmbclient is not installed when WRKDIRPREFIX is defined
Summary: [patch] net/samba3 net/samba-libsmbclient: libsmbclient is not installed when...
Status: Closed FIXED
Alias: None
Product: Ports & Packages
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Individual Port(s) (show other bugs)
Version: Latest
Hardware: Any Any
: Normal Affects Only Me
Assignee: Ade Lovett
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2006-02-21 08:00 UTC by NIIMI Satoshi
Modified: 2006-02-23 13:50 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:


Attachments
samba3.diff (605 bytes, patch)
2006-02-21 08:00 UTC, NIIMI Satoshi
no flags Details | Diff

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description NIIMI Satoshi 2006-02-21 08:00:17 UTC
In net/samba-libsmclient, Makefile includes ../samba3/Makefile, and
../samba3/Makefile includes samba-libsmbclient/Makefile.inc.

When WRKDIRPREFIX is defined, samba3/Makefile trys to include
${WRKDIRPREFIX}/usr/ports/net/samba-libsmbclient/Makefile.inc and
fails.

How-To-Repeat: cd /usr/ports/net/samba-libsmbclient; make WRKDIRPREFIX=/var/tmp install
Comment 1 Edwin Groothuis freebsd_committer freebsd_triage 2006-02-21 08:04:11 UTC
State Changed
From-To: open->feedback

Awaiting maintainers feedback
Comment 2 Timur I. Bakeyev 2006-02-22 04:09:58 UTC
Hi all!

My fault, I've copied this lines from another port, without deep 
thinking about their meaning...

So, proposed fix is correct and should be applied to the current samba3 
port(dunno, is it possible due freeze right now). Thanks, Niimi, for 
spotting it so quickly.
Kris, that's the fix to the problem you've reported, as well as to the 
ports/93688. So, can one of the commiters apply this fix ASAP? (Tom has 
connectivity problems right now, so can't do it by himself...).

With best regards,
Timur.
Comment 3 Ade Lovett freebsd_committer freebsd_triage 2006-02-22 08:46:42 UTC
State Changed
From-To: feedback->closed

Tested and committed, thanks. 


Comment 4 Ade Lovett freebsd_committer freebsd_triage 2006-02-22 08:46:42 UTC
Responsible Changed
From-To: freebsd-ports-bugs->ade

Tested and committed, thanks.
Comment 5 Kris Kennaway 2006-02-22 20:36:19 UTC
On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 05:09:58AM +0100, Timur I. Bakeyev wrote:
> Hi all!
> 
> My fault, I've copied this lines from another port, without deep 
> thinking about their meaning...
> 
> So, proposed fix is correct and should be applied to the current samba3 
> port(dunno, is it possible due freeze right now). Thanks, Niimi, for 
> spotting it so quickly.
> Kris, that's the fix to the problem you've reported, as well as to the 
> ports/93688. So, can one of the commiters apply this fix ASAP? (Tom has 
> connectivity problems right now, so can't do it by himself...).


The port is still broken:

  http://pointyhat.freebsd.org/errorlogs/i386-errorlogs/e.5-exp.2006020203/samba-libsmbclient-3.0.21b.log

This port must be fixed immediately since it's in the dependency chain
for KDE and GNOME, and it's blocking the testing work that we need to
finish before the start of the freeze.

If someone can fix it in the next hour we can proceed, otherwise I'll
have to revert the broken updates.

Kris
Comment 6 Ade Lovett freebsd_committer freebsd_triage 2006-02-22 20:44:22 UTC
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


On Feb 22, 2006, at 12:36 , Kris Kennaway wrote:
> The port is still broken:
>
>   http://pointyhat.freebsd.org/errorlogs/i386-errorlogs/e.5-exp. 
> 2006020203/samba-libsmbclient-3.0.21b.log

Hrm.  Packaged fine here.

http://tinderbox.lovett.com/ui/index.php?action=describe_port&id=153

Is this with rev 1.148 of net/samba3/Makefile?  The problem was  
there, not within the net/samba-libsmbclient port itself.

- -aDe


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFD/M0mpXS8U0IvffwRAlaGAJ0Wosks/Obv5sVRj3SD1oKRiHqHGgCfWYec
IQKtiQfgLfEsJfQCvyhaxLc=
=gqdh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment 7 Kris Kennaway 2006-02-22 20:48:15 UTC
On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 12:44:22PM -0800, Ade Lovett wrote:
> 
> On Feb 22, 2006, at 12:36 , Kris Kennaway wrote:
> > The port is still broken:
> >
> >   http://pointyhat.freebsd.org/errorlogs/i386-errorlogs/e.5-exp. 
> > 2006020203/samba-libsmbclient-3.0.21b.log
> 
> Hrm.  Packaged fine here.
> 
> http://tinderbox.lovett.com/ui/index.php?action=describe_port&id=153
> 
> Is this with rev 1.148 of net/samba3/Makefile?  The problem was  
> there, not within the net/samba-libsmbclient port itself.


Ah, it was indeed missing that update.  I'll retry.

Kris
Comment 8 Ade Lovett freebsd_committer freebsd_triage 2006-02-23 09:56:39 UTC
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Having looked in more detail at net/samba3 and net/samba- 
libsmbclient, I'm now of the opinion that the latter should not  
really be a slave port, but a port in its own right.

The amount of hackery that goes on to shoehorn samba-libsmbclient as  
a slave to samba3 is, imo, simply not worth the pain, given the  
alternative of simply maintaining two independent ports, and ensuring  
that distinfo et al. is updated for both on an update.

- -aDe

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFD/YbXpXS8U0IvffwRAtPwAJkB/x7wMlK8DHxY2wN7swdx/S5hpQCeIRSh
IRZVyOw//XebEQSLxN1QWTM=
=hD9X
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment 9 Timur I. Bakeyev 2006-02-23 13:48:57 UTC
Hi all!

On Thu, Feb 23, 2006 at 01:56:39AM -0800, Ade Lovett wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Having looked in more detail at net/samba3 and net/samba-libsmbclient, I'm now 
> of the opinion that the latter should not really be a slave port, but a port in 
> its own right.


I don't agree, that it is necessary. Before the last update slave/master
relation was very clear and easy to grasp - compare with net/py-samba, which
is of the same level of complexity. Recent hack with Makefile.inc was added
mostly for prettiness of OPTIONS knob and is inspired by it - we still can't
make it work without inclusion of <bsd.pre.ports.mk>...

> The amount of hackery that goes on to shoehorn samba-libsmbclient as a slave to 
> samba3 is, imo, simply not worth the pain, given the alternative of simply 
> maintaining two independent ports, and ensuring that distinfo et al. is updated 
> for both on an update.


I don't see much hackery besides that Makefile.inc. All the rest, including
tricky Kerberos 5 detection is done for the samba3 port and, in case of split,
should be duplicated in the libsmbclient port. BTW, there is jet another port
that depends from net/samba3 - ja/samba3.

In general, my opinion is that current state of samba3 ports is stable enough
and they should remain as is.

With best regards,
Timur.