+ case "${usergroup_phase}" in
+ local run_cmd
+ run_cmd=run_su
+ shift
+ run_su /opt/pkg/bin/bmake configure BATCH=1 DEPENDS_TARGET=/nonexistent WRKLOG=/tmp/bulklog/db6-6.2.32/work.log
+ su pbulk -c '"$@"' make /opt/pkg/bin/bmake configure BATCH=1 DEPENDS_TARGET=/nonexistent WRKLOG=/tmp/bulklog/db6-6.2.32/work.log
=> Checksum BLAKE2s OK for db-6.2.32.tar.gz
=> Checksum SHA512 OK for db-6.2.32.tar.gz
===> Installing dependencies for db6-6.2.32
=> Tool dependency libtool-base>=2.4.2nb9: found libtool-base-2.4.7nb1
=> Tool dependency pax>=20040802: found pax-20210219
=> Tool dependency cwrappers>=20150314: found cwrappers-20220403
=> Tool dependency checkperms>=1.1: found checkperms-1.12
===> Overriding tools for db6-6.2.32
===> Extracting for db6-6.2.32
===> Patching for db6-6.2.32
=> Applying pkgsrc patches for db6-6.2.32
=> Verifying /data/jenkins/workspace/pkgsrc-upstream-trunk/databases/db6/patches/patch-dist_Makefile.in
=> Applying pkgsrc patch /data/jenkins/workspace/pkgsrc-upstream-trunk/databases/db6/patches/patch-dist_Makefile.in
Hmm...  Looks like a unified diff to me...
The text leading up to this was:
--------------------------
|$NetBSD: patch-dist_Makefile.in,v 1.2 2017/01/26 11:03:17 adam Exp $
|
|* For pkgsrc installation.
|* Use db6 instead of db.
|
|--- dist/Makefile.in.orig	2016-03-28 19:45:48.000000000 +0000
|+++ dist/Makefile.in
--------------------------
Patching file dist/Makefile.in using Plan A...
Hunk #1 succeeded at 17.
Hunk #2 succeeded at 54.
Hunk #3 succeeded at 73.
Hunk #4 succeeded at 92.
Hunk #5 succeeded at 162.
Hunk #6 succeeded at 181.
Hunk #7 succeeded at 1177 (offset 10 lines).
Hunk #8 succeeded at 1224 (offset 10 lines).
Hunk #9 succeeded at 1265 (offset 10 lines).
done
=> Verifying /data/jenkins/workspace/pkgsrc-upstream-trunk/databases/db6/patches/patch-dist_configure
=> Applying pkgsrc patch /data/jenkins/workspace/pkgsrc-upstream-trunk/databases/db6/patches/patch-dist_configure
Hmm...  Looks like a unified diff to me...
The text leading up to this was:
--------------------------
|$NetBSD: patch-dist_configure,v 1.5 2020/06/29 13:24:55 ryoon Exp $
|
|Toolchains differ whether __aarch64__ or __arm64__ should be defined.
|Portability fix.
|
|--- dist/configure.orig	2017-04-13 14:06:13.000000000 +0000
|+++ dist/configure
--------------------------
Patching file dist/configure using Plan A...
Hunk #1 succeeded at 5276.
Hunk #2 succeeded at 7070.
Hunk #3 succeeded at 17877.
Hunk #4 succeeded at 18617.
Hunk #5 succeeded at 20486.
Hunk #6 succeeded at 20821.
Hunk #7 succeeded at 22088.
done
=> Verifying /data/jenkins/workspace/pkgsrc-upstream-trunk/databases/db6/patches/patch-dist_s__thrift
=> Applying pkgsrc patch /data/jenkins/workspace/pkgsrc-upstream-trunk/databases/db6/patches/patch-dist_s__thrift
Hmm...  Looks like a unified diff to me...
The text leading up to this was:
--------------------------
|$NetBSD: patch-dist_s__thrift,v 1.1 2020/06/29 13:24:55 ryoon Exp $
|
|* Fix POSIX shell portability issue.
|
|--- dist/s_thrift.orig	2017-04-13 14:06:13.000000000 +0000
|+++ dist/s_thrift
--------------------------
Patching file dist/s_thrift using Plan A...
Hunk #1 succeeded at 93.
done
=> Verifying /data/jenkins/workspace/pkgsrc-upstream-trunk/databases/db6/patches/patch-src_dbinc_atomic.h
=> Applying pkgsrc patch /data/jenkins/workspace/pkgsrc-upstream-trunk/databases/db6/patches/patch-src_dbinc_atomic.h
Hmm...  Looks like a unified diff to me...
The text leading up to this was:
--------------------------
|$NetBSD: patch-src_dbinc_atomic.h,v 1.4 2020/06/29 13:24:55 ryoon Exp $
|
|--- src/dbinc/atomic.h.orig	2017-04-13 14:06:20.000000000 +0000
|+++ src/dbinc/atomic.h
--------------------------
Patching file src/dbinc/atomic.h using Plan A...
Hunk #1 succeeded at 73.
Hunk #2 succeeded at 226.
done
=> Verifying /data/jenkins/workspace/pkgsrc-upstream-trunk/databases/db6/patches/patch-src_dbinc_db.in
=> Applying pkgsrc patch /data/jenkins/workspace/pkgsrc-upstream-trunk/databases/db6/patches/patch-src_dbinc_db.in
Hmm...  Looks like a unified diff to me...
The text leading up to this was:
--------------------------
|$NetBSD: patch-src_dbinc_db.in,v 1.1 2016/08/26 17:23:16 joerg Exp $
|
|--- src/dbinc/db.in.orig	2015-06-18 20:05:04.000000000 +0000
|+++ src/dbinc/db.in
--------------------------
Patching file src/dbinc/db.in using Plan A...
Hunk #1 succeeded at 3001 (offset 113 lines).
done
=> Verifying /data/jenkins/workspace/pkgsrc-upstream-trunk/databases/db6/patches/patch-src_hmac_sha1.c
=> Applying pkgsrc patch /data/jenkins/workspace/pkgsrc-upstream-trunk/databases/db6/patches/patch-src_hmac_sha1.c
Hmm...  Looks like a unified diff to me...
The text leading up to this was:
--------------------------
|$NetBSD: patch-src_hmac_sha1.c,v 1.1 2015/01/01 18:52:52 ryoon Exp $
|
|--- src/hmac/sha1.c.orig	2014-06-10 15:32:56.000000000 +0000
|+++ src/hmac/sha1.c
--------------------------
Patching file src/hmac/sha1.c using Plan A...
Hunk #1 succeeded at 101.
Hunk #2 succeeded at 190.
Hunk #3 succeeded at 208.
Hunk #4 succeeded at 236.
done
=> Verifying /data/jenkins/workspace/pkgsrc-upstream-trunk/databases/db6/patches/patch-src_mp_mp__fget.c
=> Applying pkgsrc patch /data/jenkins/workspace/pkgsrc-upstream-trunk/databases/db6/patches/patch-src_mp_mp__fget.c
Hmm...  Looks like a unified diff to me...
The text leading up to this was:
--------------------------
|$NetBSD: patch-src_mp_mp__fget.c,v 1.1 2015/09/08 18:51:28 joerg Exp $
|
|--- src/mp/mp_fget.c.orig	2015-09-02 11:18:18.000000000 +0000
|+++ src/mp/mp_fget.c
--------------------------
Patching file src/mp/mp_fget.c using Plan A...
Hunk #1 succeeded at 650 (offset -4 lines).
Hunk #2 succeeded at 965 (offset -4 lines).
done
=> Verifying /data/jenkins/workspace/pkgsrc-upstream-trunk/databases/db6/patches/patch-src_mp_mp__mvcc.c
=> Applying pkgsrc patch /data/jenkins/workspace/pkgsrc-upstream-trunk/databases/db6/patches/patch-src_mp_mp__mvcc.c
Hmm...  Looks like a unified diff to me...
The text leading up to this was:
--------------------------
|$NetBSD: patch-src_mp_mp__mvcc.c,v 1.1 2015/09/08 18:51:28 joerg Exp $
|
|--- src/mp/mp_mvcc.c.orig	2015-09-02 11:18:15.000000000 +0000
|+++ src/mp/mp_mvcc.c
--------------------------
Patching file src/mp/mp_mvcc.c using Plan A...
Hunk #1 succeeded at 281.
Hunk #2 succeeded at 440.
done
=> Verifying /data/jenkins/workspace/pkgsrc-upstream-trunk/databases/db6/patches/patch-src_mp_mp__region.c
=> Applying pkgsrc patch /data/jenkins/workspace/pkgsrc-upstream-trunk/databases/db6/patches/patch-src_mp_mp__region.c
Hmm...  Looks like a unified diff to me...
The text leading up to this was:
--------------------------
|$NetBSD: patch-src_mp_mp__region.c,v 1.1 2015/09/08 18:51:28 joerg Exp $
|
|--- src/mp/mp_region.c.orig	2015-09-02 11:18:13.000000000 +0000
|+++ src/mp/mp_region.c
--------------------------
Patching file src/mp/mp_region.c using Plan A...
Hunk #1 succeeded at 278.
Hunk #2 succeeded at 332.
done
=> Verifying /data/jenkins/workspace/pkgsrc-upstream-trunk/databases/db6/patches/patch-src_mutex_mut__method.c
=> Applying pkgsrc patch /data/jenkins/workspace/pkgsrc-upstream-trunk/databases/db6/patches/patch-src_mutex_mut__method.c
Hmm...  Looks like a unified diff to me...
The text leading up to this was:
--------------------------
|$NetBSD: patch-src_mutex_mut__method.c,v 1.1 2015/09/08 18:51:28 joerg Exp $
|
|--- src/mutex/mut_method.c.orig	2015-09-02 11:18:11.000000000 +0000
|+++ src/mutex/mut_method.c
--------------------------
Patching file src/mutex/mut_method.c using Plan A...
No such line 500 in input file, ignoring
Hunk #1 succeeded at 479 (offset -22 lines).
done
=> Verifying /data/jenkins/workspace/pkgsrc-upstream-trunk/databases/db6/patches/patch-src_mutex_mut__tas.c
=> Applying pkgsrc patch /data/jenkins/workspace/pkgsrc-upstream-trunk/databases/db6/patches/patch-src_mutex_mut__tas.c
Hmm...  Looks like a unified diff to me...
The text leading up to this was:
--------------------------
|$NetBSD: patch-src_mutex_mut__tas.c,v 1.1 2015/09/08 18:51:28 joerg Exp $
|
|--- src/mutex/mut_tas.c.orig	2015-09-02 11:18:09.000000000 +0000
|+++ src/mutex/mut_tas.c
--------------------------
Patching file src/mutex/mut_tas.c using Plan A...
Hunk #1 succeeded at 43 (offset -4 lines).
Hunk #2 succeeded at 621 (offset -21 lines).
done
===> Creating toolchain wrappers for db6-6.2.32
===> Configuring for db6-6.2.32
=> Modifying GNU configure scripts to avoid --recheck
=> Replacing config-guess with pkgsrc versions
=> Replacing config-sub with pkgsrc versions
=> Replacing install-sh with pkgsrc version
=> Checking for portability problems in extracted files
ERROR: [check-portability] => Found test ... == ...:
ERROR: [check-portability] dist/validate/s_chk_message_id:32: if [ "$curnum" == "id" ]; then

Explanation:
===========================================================================
The "test" command, as well as the "[" command, are not required to know
the "==" operator. Only a few implementations like bash and some
versions of ksh support it.

When you run "test foo == foo" on a platform that does not support the
"==" operator, the result will be "false" instead of "true". This can
lead to unexpected behavior.

There are two ways to fix this error message. If the file that contains
the "test ==" is needed for building the package, you should create a
patch for it, replacing the "==" operator with "=". If the file is not
needed, add its name to the CHECK_PORTABILITY_SKIP variable in the
package Makefile.
===========================================================================
    
ERROR: [check-portability] => Found test ... == ...:
ERROR: [check-portability] dist/validate/s_chk_message_id:47: if [ "$curnum" == "$lastnum" ]; then

Explanation:
===========================================================================
The "test" command, as well as the "[" command, are not required to know
the "==" operator. Only a few implementations like bash and some
versions of ksh support it.

When you run "test foo == foo" on a platform that does not support the
"==" operator, the result will be "false" instead of "true". This can
lead to unexpected behavior.

There are two ways to fix this error message. If the file that contains
the "test ==" is needed for building the package, you should create a
patch for it, replacing the "==" operator with "=". If the file is not
needed, add its name to the CHECK_PORTABILITY_SKIP variable in the
package Makefile.
===========================================================================
    
ERROR: [check-portability] => Found test ... == ...:
ERROR: [check-portability] dist/validate/s_chk_message_id:48: if [ "$curnum" == "$rep_dup_msg_id" ]; then

Explanation:
===========================================================================
The "test" command, as well as the "[" command, are not required to know
the "==" operator. Only a few implementations like bash and some
versions of ksh support it.

When you run "test foo == foo" on a platform that does not support the
"==" operator, the result will be "false" instead of "true". This can
lead to unexpected behavior.

There are two ways to fix this error message. If the file that contains
the "test ==" is needed for building the package, you should create a
patch for it, replacing the "==" operator with "=". If the file is not
needed, add its name to the CHECK_PORTABILITY_SKIP variable in the
package Makefile.
===========================================================================
    
*** Error code 1

Stop.
bmake[1]: stopped making "configure" in /data/jenkins/workspace/pkgsrc-upstream-trunk/databases/db6
*** Error code 1

Stop.
bmake: stopped making "configure" in /data/jenkins/workspace/pkgsrc-upstream-trunk/databases/db6