ports/172600: [PKGNG]sysutils/bacula-client & sysutils/bacula-server conflict and shouldn't

[Larry Rosenman]

On 2013-01-03 12:02, Ruslan Makhmatkhanov wrote:
> Dan Langille wrote on 03.01.2013 20:37:
>> On 2013-01-03 11:10, Ruslan Makhmatkhanov wrote:
>>> Thank you for quick reply!
>>>
>>> Larry Rosenman wrote on 03.01.2013 19:52:
>>>> ===>   Running ldconfig
>>>> /sbin/ldconfig -m /usr/local/lib
>>>> ===>   Registering installation for bacula-client-5.2.12
>>>> Installing bacula-client-5.2.12...pkg: bacula-client-5.2.12 
>>>> conflicts
>>>> with bacula-server-5.2.12 (installs files into the same place).
>>>> Problematic file: /usr/local/man/man8/bacula-fd.8.gz
>>>
>>> It's quite odd, because this file is installed only if
>>> WITH_CLIENT_ONLY is enabled. Can't it be some pkg cached result or
>>> something? Would you please try to set PORTREVISION to 1 in
>>> bacula-server/Makefile and try again? If this helps,
>>
>> Larry: FYI: bacula-server now installs bacula-client as a 
>> LIB_DEPENDS
>>
>> Thus, after installing bacula-server, bacula-client should already 
>> be
>> installed.
>>
>> Does that help?
>
> Maybe they need to be deinstalled first?

Deinstall/re-install (and making sure all the /usr/local/lib/libbac* 
stuff is deleted, etc)
seems to work.

/usr/local/etc/rc.d/bacula-sd has an extraneous rcvar=`set_rcvar` line 
in it that should be nuked.

Thanks guys!

>
>> Ahh, yes, we did not bump the PORTREVISION.  I think we should have. 
>> Let
>> me know
>> if a bump helps.
>>
>>>> Yes, it still seems to be broken,  there is a pending PR to fix 
>>>> it, but
>>>> AFAIK it has NOT been committed yet.
>>>
>>> This one, that I closed today?
>>> http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=170773
>>
>> No, this PR committed in Dec:
>>
>> http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/167700
>>
>>> I believe it's no more applicable to current port state and 
>>> something
>>> similar is done in current bacula ports anyway.
>>
>> I do not understand the above statement.
>
> Forget it :). I mean something like "this particular patch (from pr I
> mentioned) will not apply against current ports tree". And the second
> part - the current bacula ports should be ok by themselves, and no
> modification like in that pr is needed anymore. But it's strange that
> it still failing with pkgng.