Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sat, 21 Jul 2012 13:48:01 -0700 (PDT)
From:      "Jason E. Hale" <bsdkaffee@gmail.com>
To:        Scot Hetzel <swhetzel@gmail.com>
Cc:        Doug Barton <dougb@freebsd.org>, Jeremy Messenger <mezz.freebsd@gmail.com>, ruby@freebsd.org, Edwin Groothuis <edwin@mavetju.org>, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org, gnome@freebsd.org, johans@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: How to remove erroneous deps from pkgng
Message-ID:  <2193820.CL19acAFmS@mocha.verizon.net>
In-Reply-To: <CACdU%2Bf97xFgcdAA8UqAOZDk-kHsA2Y0qLDEr38r-MsPt6a-aOw@mail.gmail.com>
References:  <D0056D18EAAD41119F26D0715FA52FB6@Rivendell> <15617903.FBMimp13fy@mocha.verizon.net> <CACdU%2Bf97xFgcdAA8UqAOZDk-kHsA2Y0qLDEr38r-MsPt6a-aOw@mail.gmail.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Saturday, July 21, 2012 11:38:39 Scot Hetzel wrote:
> > The problem with simply removing
> > 
> > pkgconfig_RUN_DEPENDS=          pkg-config:${PORTSDIR}/devel/pkg-config
> > 
> > from bsd.gnome.mk is that there are ports that indirectly depend on
> > pkg-config for their build through other ports that directly depend on it
> > since it has just been a runtime dependency.  I know there are quite a
> > few KDE ports like that.
> 
> Removing this runtime dependency for pkgconfig from bsd.gnome.mk is
> the correct thing to do, until we have the better frame work to
> specify that pkgconfig is a build or run dependancy.
> 
IMO I don't really see what the hurry is.  This has been the behavior for 
years.  I think we can wait until there is a framework in place so we are not 
doing double work.  I agree it should be done, but why go through all this 
again in a week or a month?

> > To explain better, x11/kdelibs4 has USE_GNOME=pkgconfig, but some ports
> > that depend on kdelibs4 and require pkg-config for their build are not
> > currently defining USE_GNOME=pkgconfig since it is assumed that
> > pkg-config is installed. A direct dependency for pkg-config would need to
> > be added to all of those ports.
> 
> That is what the experimental run will tell us.  Which ports break
> when this line is removed/disabled in bsd.gnome.mk.  This way we can
> fix those ports by adding a BUILD_DEPENDS to them.
> 
There are a few ports that need pkg-config to properly configure, but will 
build anyways without it.  Just doing an exp-run isn't going to neccessarily 
test for those (graphics/kipi-plugins-kde4 is a good example although in that 
case there may be some file leftovers to give it away).  Certain non-default 
options may use pkg-config to check a dependency as well and a default build 
wouldn't tell us if those options worked or not.

> > I think there would be a lot less breakage if the line in bsd.gnome.mk
> > were
> > left in for now and we migrated over to the pkgconfig:build/run scheme.
> 
> We would still have the same amount of breakage.  In your example
> x11/kdelibs4 would be changed to USE_GNOME=pkgconfig:build.  The ports
> that still have an indirect build dependancy on pkgconfig would still
> fail to build.
> 
I see what you're saying.  I was originally thinking that it would still 
remain as USE_GNOME=pkgconfig, meaning pkg-config is a build and run 
dependency and we could opt-in to either :build or :run later.

My main concern is with ports like graphics/kipi-plugins-kde4 where the 
failure isn't going to be as obvious.  I think a good alternative is to detect 
the ports that currently have and indirect dependency on pkg-config whether 
needed or not and add USE_GNOME=pkgconfig (if we are just going to remove the 
line from bsd.gnome.mk) to them for now.

Jason E. Hale
KDE/FreeBSD Team



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?2193820.CL19acAFmS>