Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 14:25:13 -0300 From: Renato Botelho <garga@FreeBSD.org> To: Nikos Ntarmos <ntarmos@cs.uoi.gr> Cc: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ports/138183: [PATCH] x11/xcb-util: update to 0.3.6 Message-ID: <20090908172509.GB9355@bluepex.com> In-Reply-To: <20090908165423.GB8092@asgard.cs.uoi.gr> References: <200909050810.n858A37o054971@freefall.freebsd.org> <20090908162000.GA9355@bluepex.com> <20090908165423.GB8092@asgard.cs.uoi.gr>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, Sep 08, 2009 at 07:54:23PM +0300, Nikos Ntarmos wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 08, 2009 at 01:20:00PM -0300, Renato Botelho wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 05, 2009 at 08:10:03AM +0000, Nikos Ntarmos wrote:
> > > The following reply was made to PR ports/138183; it has been noted by GNATS.
> > >
> > > Since x11/xcb-util v0.3.5 I've received multiple emails about xcb-util
> > > failing to build. This is caused by x11/libxcb having been built against
> > > x11/xcb-proto version 1.4, while xcb-util requires the former to be
> > > built against xcb-proto 1.5 or higher. As of this, I've added a check in
> > > xcb-util's Makefile to warn when this is the case. Obviously, this
> > > situation arises when the installed ports are not fully in sync with the
> > > ports tree or when libxcb has been installed via an early package. If
> > > the added check is deemed unnecessary, then the patch supplied by Renato
> > > is good to go, but perhaps we should add a line or two in UPDATING.
> >
> > What do you think about add xcb-proto dependency explicit on BUILD_DEPENDS
> > set with a version check, like following patch:
>
> That's a nice idea but it still wouldn't work. libxcb requires xcb-proto
> which is already at version 1.5 in the ports. However, some mirrors and
> binary distros seem to have (had) libxcb versions compiled against an
> earlier xcb-proto version. In those cases this check wouldn't alleviate
> the issue. We can discard the check altogether and hope that the mirrors
> and binary distributions will eventually catch up, but given the volume
> of reports I had the past couple of months, I'd rather it stayed unless
> it's against some policy or something.
It'll work, imagine this scenario, user has installed libxcb using an old
package, linked with xcb-proto 1.4, and it's working for him. Doesn't matter
what we have current in ports tree since this guy used a pkg.
When he/she try to install xcb-util, it'll check and give user a message
like this:
===> Extracting for xcb-util-0.3.6
=> MD5 Checksum OK for xcb-util-0.3.6.tar.bz2.
=> SHA256 Checksum OK for xcb-util-0.3.6.tar.bz2.
===> Patching for xcb-util-0.3.6
===> xcb-util-0.3.6 depends on file: /usr/local/bin/gperf - found
===> xcb-util-0.3.6 depends on package: xcb-proto>=1.5 - not found
===> Found xcb-proto-1.4, but you need to upgrade to xcb-proto>=1.5.
Don't you think it's good enough?
- --
Renato Botelho <garga @ FreeBSD.org>
<garga @ freebsdbrasil.com.br>
GnuPG Key: http://www.FreeBSD.org/~garga/pubkey.asc
Numeric stability is probably not all that important when you're guessing.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.13 (FreeBSD)
iEYEARECAAYFAkqmk3UACgkQ6CRbiSJE7akaygCeJQNpyV1taga4PZwfxrFhpsMk
Tn8An2xVodxkFOg3zNHbjGATIlV3ESpu
=FmdF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20090908172509.GB9355>