The new version of mail/opendkim 2.7.2 is available. Release announcement: http://lists.opendkim.org/archive/opendkim/announce/2012/11/0038.html Fix: The patch follows: + drop patches fixed in upstream + some aesthetic changes with OPTIONS How-To-Repeat: N/A
Responsible Changed From-To: freebsd-ports-bugs->madpilot I'll take it.
Hi, There is a problem with you patch, why did you add the check ".if ${PORT_OPTIONS:MFFR}"? There are two problems with it. First it is not needed. MULTI containers are handled by the ports options system. If the FFR multi is not selected the port options system guarantees none of the contained options are defined. If you observe the system behaving differently it is a bug and should be reported. Second problem is that by simply putting the whole Makefile.features in that conditional you end up with a lot of defines missing from PLIST_SUB, causing packaging to fail. You can observe this in tinderbox or by running make package. I'm attaching a fixed patch. I will wait for your feedback. Thanks you. -- Guido Falsi <madpilot@FreeBSD.org>
State Changed From-To: open->feedback Ask for maintainer approval.
Hi, On 11/16/2012, at 7:05, Guido Falsi wrote: > There is a problem with you patch, why did you add the check ".if = ${PORT_OPTIONS:MFFR}"? >=20 > There are two problems with it. First it is not needed. MULTI = containers are handled by the ports options system. If the FFR multi is = not selected the port options system guarantees none of the contained = options are defined. If you observe the system behaving differently it = is a bug and should be reported. In my env, when FFR is off and any one of FFR_MULTI is on, the dialog shows all in FFR_MULTI is off but CONFIGURE_ARGS has the options. If it happens only in my env, your patch should be okay. > Second problem is that by simply putting the whole Makefile.features = in that conditional you end up with a lot of defines missing from = PLIST_SUB, causing packaging to fail. You can observe this in tinderbox = or by running make package. I haven't beet accessible redports.org recently, so I didn't check = tinderbox output. > I'm attaching a fixed patch. I will wait for your feedback. Regards, --=20 Hirohisa Yamaguchi <umq.461@gmail.com>=
On 11/17/12 16:43, Yamaguchi Hirohisa wrote: > Hi, > > On 11/16/2012, at 7:05, Guido Falsi wrote: >> There is a problem with you patch, why did you add the check ".if ${PORT_OPTIONS:MFFR}"? >> >> There are two problems with it. First it is not needed. MULTI containers are handled by the ports options system. If the FFR multi is not selected the port options system guarantees none of the contained options are defined. If you observe the system behaving differently it is a bug and should be reported. > > In my env, when FFR is off and any one of FFR_MULTI is on, > the dialog shows all in FFR_MULTI is off but CONFIGURE_ARGS has > the options. > > If it happens only in my env, your patch should be okay. I now see the problem. I will have to dig further on this to make sure how to best deal with it. I hope it will not take too long. -- Guido Falsi <madpilot@FreeBSD.org>
Hi, Sorry for the long delay. I made a new patch, taking advantage of the new options framework feature "OPTIONS_GROUP". I also fixed the check around FFR. Here is a patch for you to test and, if you see fit, approve. Thanks. -- Guido Falsi <madpilot@FreeBSD.org>
Hi, thanks for your coordination. OPTIONS_GROUP seems to work pretty good. btw, the new version 2.7.3 is now available # announcement: http://lists.opendkim.org/archive/opendkim/announce/2012/11/0039.html So I've updated your patch. Regards, -- Hirohisa Yamaguchi <umq@ueo.co.jp>
State Changed From-To: feedback->closed Committed. Thanks!