Newby Question: What to do when one port can't recognize another port?
Jeff D
Reading the Handbook is mostly helpful, but I' getting hit with a couple of
problems I can't figure out.
I was looking for a beginner's list. I think this is the closest to it.
The main reason I'm trying out FreeBSD is because I want to set up my own
web server, and the Ports seemed liked a way to do it that manages conflicts
& dependencies better even that Linux systems. Not being much of a program
guy, that sounds good to me!
When I try to install the Apache port in /usr/ports/www/apache22, it errors
out with
IGNORED
Unknown Berkeley DB version
After checking on the Oracle site, I made sure to install the latest, most
up to date /usr/ports/databases/db46 port. It seems to have worked and I
can use it in other ports.
I'm not sure where to turn next.
Anybody got some advice to share?
Regards,
Jeff
Jeff D
Erich Dollansky
there should be a file under
/usr/ports/
called UPGRADING
It contains some hints of changes.
Jeff D wrote:
>
> IGNORED
> Unknown Berkeley DB version
>
Can you configure Apache to use other database systems?
Erich
Matthew Seaman
Hash: RIPEMD160
Jeff D wrote:
> When I try to install the Apache port in /usr/ports/www/apache22, it errors
> out with
>
> IGNORED
> Unknown Berkeley DB version
This is a known problem with the apache22 port. At the moment it only
understands about Berkeley DB versions up to 4.4.x -- there's an open
ticket in the PR system which requests support for versions up to 4.6.x:
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/116637
Until that gets fixed, use BDB 4.4.x instead. To make that the default
version on your system add this to /etc/make.conf:
WITH_BDB_VER= 44
Cheers,
Matthew
- --
Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. Flat 3
7 Priory Courtyard
PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate
Kent, CT11 9PW, UK
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFHJuw+3jDkPpsZ+VYRA4rOAJ9zn9QMdCY9BM6VDF1BjLlsEv9dwACfdwTg
h8OP6o+MNYUQibJwfApmhao=
=TfMF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Jeff D
On 10/30/07, Matthew Seaman <m.se...@infracaninophile.co.uk> wrote:
>
> This is a known problem with the apache22 port. At the moment it only
> understands about Berkeley DB versions up to 4.4.x -- there's an open
> ticket in the PR system which requests support for versions up to 4.6.x:
> http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/116637
>
> Until that gets fixed, use BDB 4.4.x instead. To make that the default
> version on your system add this to /etc/make.conf:
>
> WITH_BDB_VER= 44
Thanks for pointing this out.
I'd thought that the port system in Freebsd was assured to be internally
consistent with all other stuff in the system by a central team (QA?). I
didn't realize that each port was from a different person, and that the
process could get held up for weeks or months.
I guess your advice is what I should do. I'm a little nervous about undoing
what's already been done, and think I might just start over with db44 to be
safe.
Knowing this now, I guess I should also make a list of the programs and
versions I need, and check each & every one for problems before I start
again. If something popular like the Apache Web Server has long standing
unresolved issues like this, other programs may too.
A friend is pushing me to use Ubunutu Linux instead, saying that stuff like
this doesn't happen with it, but I'm not so convinced. After being 'sold'
on the Freebsd ports, it's worth some more reading.
Thanks.
Regards,
Jeff
james
What version of the operating system are you using?
When did you last update your ports tree?
These're both important for us to know.
But, you should know that apache on FreeBSD is fantastic. I tried
getting it configured once on Ubuntu; that was a harsh, harsh
experience. Weird custom configuration files in weird locations.
Jeff D
On 10/30/07, james <oscart...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> What version of the operating system are you using?
I'm using the Version 6.2 Release, updated with Patchset 7
When did you last update your ports tree?
Last time was yesterday afternoon.
These're both important for us to know.
Sorry about that!
But, you should know that apache on FreeBSD is fantastic. I tried
> getting it configured once on Ubuntu; that was a harsh, harsh
> experience. Weird custom configuration files in weird locations.
>
What makes it "fantastic" versus not? Isn't an Apache configuration
supposed to be the same? In httpd.conf, or whatever?
Regards,
Jeff
james
On Tue, 2007-10-30 at 07:15 -0700, Jeff D wrote:
> James,
>
> On 10/30/07, james <oscart...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What version of the operating system are you using?
>
> I'm using the Version 6.2 Release, updated with Patchset 7
>
> When did you last update your ports tree?
>
> Last time was yesterday afternoon.
Okay, great. Have you also done a successful portupgrade since then? I
should have asked this earlier, but it's before nine and I'm not at my
best when tired ;)
>
> But, you should know that apache on FreeBSD is fantastic. I
> tried
> getting it configured once on Ubuntu; that was a harsh, harsh
> experience. Weird custom configuration files in weird
> locations.
>
> What makes it "fantastic" versus not? Isn't an Apache configuration
> supposed to be the same? In httpd.conf, or whatever?
I agree! However, some folks think that httpd.conf should be deprecated
in favour of apache2.conf. And then it gets weirder and weirder...
apache on FreeBSD is installed consistently (i.e. you know where to look
for files based upon sensible reasoning), and it follows exactly the
conventions you expect it to follow, with httpd.conf etc.
The only weirdness to be aware of is that the handbook covers apache
1.3, not 2.x.
James
Jeff D
On 10/30/07, james <oscart...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Okay, great. Have you also done a successful portupgrade since then? I
> should have asked this earlier, but it's before nine and I'm not at my
> best when tired ;)
Before I got re-started, now I have. Other than the complaint about
Apache22 not finding db46, all seemed to go ok.
apache on FreeBSD is installed consistently (i.e. you know where to look
> for files based upon sensible reasoning), and it follows exactly the
> conventions you expect it to follow, with httpd.conf etc.
>
> The only weirdness to be aware of is that the handbook covers apache
> 1.3, not 2.x.
I'll keep this in mind, and eventually investigate.
But for now I can't exactly agree OR disagree, since Apache22 simply doesn't
install on Freebsd because of this out of date Port.
I've just been told that there's some sort of a Port version freeze in place
in preparation for the version 7 release (?), which will delay any update to
that Apache22 port even longer.
I've swapped in an Ubuntu disk, and I can say that Apache 2.2.4 & BerkeleyDB
4.6.19 install just fine on Ubuntu right out of the box. I'm not sure which
way to go now. Being a big believer in "a bird in the hand ...", I'm
leaning towards Ubuntu instead, beacuse it works now. But, I'll Google some
more for objective comparisons to be sure.
Regards,
Jeff
Matthew Seaman
Hash: RIPEMD160
Jeff D wrote:
> Matthew,
>
> On 10/30/07, Matthew Seaman <m.se...@infracaninophile.co.uk> wrote:
>> This is a known problem with the apache22 port. At the moment it only
>> understands about Berkeley DB versions up to 4.4.x -- there's an open
>> ticket in the PR system which requests support for versions up to 4.6.x:
>> http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/116637
>>
>> Until that gets fixed, use BDB 4.4.x instead. To make that the default
>> version on your system add this to /etc/make.conf:
>>
>> WITH_BDB_VER= 44
>
>
> Thanks for pointing this out.
>
> I'd thought that the port system in Freebsd was assured to be internally
> consistent with all other stuff in the system by a central team (QA?). I
> didn't realize that each port was from a different person, and that the
> process could get held up for weeks or months.
Correct: there is a continual process of testing and compilation of ports
for all supported OS versions and architectures. You can see the results
here:
http://pointyhat.freebsd.org/errorlogs/
and there's also
http://portsmon.freebsd.org/index.html
which summarises all of the known issues within the ports tree.
However, due to resource limitations it's only ever the *default* set of
options that are used when test-compiling any port. At the moment, the
ports system uses databases/db41 (db41-4.1.25_4) as the default version
of Berkeley DB -- you can find that out by reading
/usr/ports/Mk/bsd.database.mk
As to why db41 is still considered the default -- probably because no one
has requested it be updated and there isn't a specific maintainer to take
care of bsd.database.mk. In any case, changes to the ports infrastructure
like that will require a test package build run before being committed, and
that's not a trivial undertaking. There's a ports freeze coming up prior to
the release of FreeBSD 6.3 and 7.0 so it's exceedingly unlikely to be changed
in the next month or two.
> I guess your advice is what I should do. I'm a little nervous about undoing
> what's already been done, and think I might just start over with db44 to be
> safe.
Fear not. You can install several BDB ports for different versions of BDB
simultaneously. No need to rip out any ports you've previously compiled
against bdb46 and rebuild them. You can make just apache depend on bdb44 by
a snippet like the following in /etc/make.conf:
.if ${.CURDIR:M*/www/apache22}
WITH_DBM= bdb
WITH_BERKELEYDB= db44
.endif
That's assuming you want to install apache-2.2.6 -- there are several other
versions of apache in the tree, and you can use much the same sort of construct,
just changing the 'www/apache22' bit, to apply options to those ports.
See also the ports-mgmt/portconf port for a possibly more user friendly way of
doing this sort of thing.
> Knowing this now, I guess I should also make a list of the programs and
> versions I need, and check each & every one for problems before I start
> again. If something popular like the Apache Web Server has long standing
> unresolved issues like this, other programs may too.
I usually find that so long as I've accounted for anything from
/usr/ports/UPDATING, then just trying to install or upgrade the port is
successful 99 times out of 100. Only on the 100th time is it necessary to go
hunting around in bug databases and so forth.
The ports tree contains over 17,000 individual ports, maintained by a wide
variety of volunteers or (in perhaps too many cases) without any particular person
or group of people to maintain them at all. Despite this, over all the quality
and consistency of ports is generally good. There will be occasional problems
- -- and when these are reported, usually they are fixed with a great deal of
dispatch.
> A friend is pushing me to use Ubunutu Linux instead, saying that stuff like
> this doesn't happen with it, but I'm not so convinced. After being 'sold'
> on the Freebsd ports, it's worth some more reading.
You friend is living in a dream world, I'm afraid. It is practically
impossible to have zero problems in any large collection of software packages or
ports like this. Ubuntu has it's points and a lot of people find it suits them
very well, but to my mind it is best fitted to being a point'n'click style desktop
for Windows refugees. FreeBSD (IMHO) is unbeaten as a serious Unix server platform,
but to get the best out of it, you should not be afraid of getting to grips
with command line interfaces.
Cheers,
Matthew
- --
Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. Flat 3
7 Priory Courtyard
PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate
Kent, CT11 9PW, UK
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFHJ1qe3jDkPpsZ+VYRA2V3AJ9zxEQQaEFWyPGGwH1atc7qI2R2iQCeNTOr
Iix/fXpSc9+7o0oNm1wjUEM=
=RxPZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Roland Smith
> I've decided to try to build up my 1st FreeBSD server.
>
> Reading the Handbook is mostly helpful, but I' getting hit with a couple of
> problems I can't figure out.
>
> I was looking for a beginner's list. I think this is the closest to it.
>
> The main reason I'm trying out FreeBSD is because I want to set up my own
> web server, and the Ports seemed liked a way to do it that manages conflicts
> & dependencies better even that Linux systems. Not being much of a program
> guy, that sounds good to me!
>
> When I try to install the Apache port in /usr/ports/www/apache22, it errors
> out with
>
> IGNORED
> Unknown Berkeley DB version
It builds fine on my machine (7.0-BETA1, amd64).
Which version of FreeBSD are you running?
Did you update your ports tree before building apache? (run 'portsnap
fetch extract' once. Later use 'portsnap fetch update' to keep the tree
up-to-date.)
Did you set or unset any options?
Roland
--
R.F.Smith http://www.xs4all.nl/~rsmith/
[plain text _non-HTML_ PGP/GnuPG encrypted/signed email much appreciated]
pgp: 1A2B 477F 9970 BA3C 2914 B7CE 1277 EFB0 C321 A725 (KeyID: C321A725)
James
All OSes have their good and bad points. Sometimes, even the mighty
ubuntu pushes out broken updates (such as the one a version or two back
that broke a significant percentage's X-configuration). And ubuntu has a
bug tracker for a reason, not just for kicks.
Just like FreeBSD.
If you want a smoother sailing way of going forwards, try installing the
older version of apache that's available in ports. Its install is the
one that's handbook documented. If you decide to go with ubuntu, I hope
it goes well for you. They have a friendly community that can help most
problems.
James
Jeff D
On 10/30/07, James <jam...@lanl.gov> wrote:
>
> All OSes have their good and bad points. Sometimes, even the mighty ubuntu
> pushes out broken updates (such as the one a version or two back that broke
> a significant percentage's X-configuration). And ubuntu has a bug tracker
> for a reason, not just for kicks.
>
> Just like FreeBSD.
>
> If you want a smoother sailing way of going forwards, try installing the
> older version of apache that's available in ports. Its install is the one
> that's handbook documented. If you decide to go with ubuntu, I hope it goes
> well for you. They have a friendly community that can help most problems.
>
Thanks for the 'points'.
I certainly get the fact that all OSes have bugs. That's not my concern.
What's a bit confounding is why/how the "process" allows two very mainstream
& released/stable versions of programs (Apache 22 & Berkeley DB 46) to not
play nice together for so long. ( Reading the PR reference from above, it's
been at least a solid month, if not longer ...). It's not liike my
expectation was to get anything but the most popular, widely used, programs
set up.
To a Newby, it seems like a guessing game as to what works and what
doesn't. Frustrating, if only after an extended 'sales job' on how the
ports system makes such problems go away got me here in the 1st place.
And, yes the Ubuntu crowd has been very responsive -- and I do have a fully
functional server with up to date program version up and running (mostly)
without any of problems of out of date Ports not being dealt with.
That said, I've stumbled on the PF firewall. After the headache I was
getting trying to learn & configure IPTables, it's seemingly straightforward
to use. And, if I read correctly, NOT available in the Linux world, only on
OpenBSD & FreeBSD.
So, I've some choices to make. The PR author replied to an email I sent,
and has given me some options to "workaround" the out of date Apache22 port
instead of downgrading to an earlier/older version of Berkeley DB. But
that's starting to get me into a system that isn't managed by a
port-management system. Which is what I was hoping to avoid in the first
place.
All of this would cease to be a problem for me if that port were simply
updated. But, that seems unlikely anytime soon without some intervention by
someone with the right knowledge & clout. That's certainly not me.
Regards,
Jeff
Matthew Seaman
Hash: RIPEMD160
Jeff D wrote:
> I've swapped in an Ubuntu disk, and I can say that Apache 2.2.4 & BerkeleyDB
> 4.6.19 install just fine on Ubuntu right out of the box.
There are security advisories against Apache 2.2.4. You should be using 2.2.6
instead. See:
http://httpd.apache.org/security/vulnerabilities_22.html
The ports system had the security fixes for Apache22 in place on the 9th
September, only two days after apache-2.2.6 was released by the Apache
foundation.
Now, there isn't a compelling reason to use any particular version of BDB
over any other with apache -- it simply doesn't need any of the new
transactional capabilities or anything like that. Hence the way the
updates have been prioritized.
Cheers,
Matthew
- --
Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. Flat 3
7 Priory Courtyard
PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate
Kent, CT11 9PW, UK
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFHKEMM3jDkPpsZ+VYRAyJYAJ4k4VmjT49mpiaKw00ecVrNKHNBYgCdH1k7
AY9aIqGuPF4aMhuEJ+iFNLk=
=y1gH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Gerard
I had a similar problem. I used the following knobs:
WITH_DBM=bdb
WITH_BERKELEYDB=db44
I installed the latest version of of DB, version db46 and changed the know
accordingly, When I attempted to reinstall the port, I received the same
message you are receiving. It appears that the port will not accept the db46
version. I read the ports Makefile, and version db46 is not listed. I did
contact the port maintainer regarding this; however, I never received a reply.
I am thinking of filing a PR.
In any case, I went back to using the older version, db44, without any problems.
--
Gerard
Jeff D
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/116637
referenced in the thread here,
Regards,
Jeff