Ports with duplicate LATEST_LINKS

[Li-Wen Hsu]

On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 09:55:02 +0200, Erwin Lansing wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 08:54:51AM +0800, Li-Wen Hsu wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 19:37:40 +0200, Erwin Lansing wrote:
> > > On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 05:22:14PM +0800, Li-Wen Hsu wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I think these two are not an issue. ?Default Python version is switched to 2.6.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> But how this report generated? ?Switching happened before
> > > > >> databases/py25-bsddb repocpoied.
> > > > >>
> > > > > The script is in Tools/scripts/check-latest-link. ?Could this be caused
> > > > > by the installed python version on the system it runs on?
> > > > 
> > > > Sounds possible, and that's what bsd.python.mk does.
> > > > databases/py25-bsddb is a slave port of databases/py-bsddb,
> > > > which generates python 2.5 package for some ports depend on
> > > > specified python version.  When a system with python 2.5
> > > > as the default setting, databases/py-bsddb and databases/py25-bsddb
> > > > should generate same package.  So now the problem is, is it OK for them
> > > > have same LATEST_LINK?  Or we can just ignore this problem, since this
> > > > should not effect official package build, and the latest links on the ftp.
> > > > 
> > > As you probably saw on the ports list, this also broke INDEX (not
> > > noticed before because the INDEX script has wedged it zfs mount).  It
> > > looks like overriding LOCALBASE to /nonexistent does fix both issue as
> > > the script will no longer see the locally installed python version.
> > > This solves this issue.
> > 
> > Sorry that I am a bit confusted about what you mean.  Are you suggesting
> > me to override these ports' LOCALBASE to /nonexistent ?  Or this means
> > that everything works fine now?
> > 
> The latter.  I was just explaining what I changed in the script to make
> it less confused.  No need for you to change anything.

That's great.  Thanks for the explanation.

-- 
Li-Wen Hsu <lwhsu AT FreeBSD.org>
http://lwhsu.org