[101989] trunk/dports/net/bind9

[Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia]

On Jan 24, 2013, at 7:13 AM, Daniel J. Luke <dluke at geeklair.net> wrote:

> On Jan 23, 2013, at 10:55 PM, Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia <jeremyhu at macports.org> wrote:
>> On Jan 23, 2013, at 7:39 PM, Daniel J. Luke <dluke at geeklair.net> wrote:
>>> On Jan 23, 2013, at 7:38 PM, jeremyhu at macports.org wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> bind9: Fix inlining
>>> 
>>> What ticket is this for? and/or what was broken that you fixed on this non-openmaintainer port?
>> 
>> This is an obvious fix for a build failure.  
> 
> What build failure? Just the +dlz_mysql5 variant?

No.  It has nothing to do with the dlz_mysql5 variant.

> (If so, it wasn't a minimal fix, since it affected more than that variant - if not, it wasn't something that prevented the build on my local boxes or the buildboxes, so I don't think it really qualifies under that policy).

Well, that's your opinion.  I'm sorry we disagree.

>> The second is permitted for non-openmaintainer ports, and the former was recently suggested as an extension of that allowance.
> 
> It may have been suggested, but as far as I know, it wasn't actually added to the policy.

Well, my apologies for not wanting to bother you with something trivial.

>> bind9's "checking for static inline breakage... " check was broken and returning "yes" incorrectly because their check was not valid.
> 
> ... but the build still worked fine even though it wasn't inlining things that it maybe should have been, right?
> Did you push your patch back upstream?

I spent 5 minutes looking on http://www.isc.org for a way to actually send them the patch only to be presented with requests to fill out a sponsorship application before I could join their forums.  As such, ISC doesn't have the patch.

> In any event - I always appreciate getting a note and/or ticket if someone is going to work on one of my non-openmaintainer ports (they aren't openmaintainer for a reason, after all). 

Well, you didn't give me much time to send you a note.  You replied to my comment seconds after I pushed it ;)

> 
>>> It looks like now everyone who installs it needs autoconf and needs autoreconf where before there were some patches just for dlz_mysql5 :-\
>> 
>> Yeah, well... them's the breaks.
> 
> ... but the don't have to be. I would think that adding additional dependencies like that would have at least been enough of a change that you'd want to let me know about it before you made the change …

Sorry.  I didn't really see it as a big deal.  So many ports depend on autoconf that I don't see it as an added dependency.  As I mentioned, it's an obvious fix that I noticed, and I didn't want to bother you with it beforehand.