Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 18:00:01 GMT From: Koop Mast <kwm@rainbow-runner.nl> To: gnome@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ports/175276: [patch] devel/py-gobject OPTIONSFILE eval order problem Message-ID: <201303191800.r2JI0169070287@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
The following reply was made to PR ports/175276; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: Koop Mast <kwm@rainbow-runner.nl>
To: Jeremy Messenger <mezz.freebsd@gmail.com>
Cc: "John W. O'Brien" <john@saltant.com>, gnome@freebsd.org,
FreeBSD Ports Mailing List <ports@freebsd.org>,
Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@freebsd.org>, bug-followup@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: ports/175276: [patch] devel/py-gobject OPTIONSFILE eval order
problem
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 18:50:08 +0100
On 19-3-2013 17:56, Jeremy Messenger wrote:
> Sorry, this is way too long to read. I will just skip the read and
> post my suggest of solution to this problem in the top of your email.
> I think the OPTIONS needs to change from ${UNIQUENAME} to
> ${PKGORIGIN:S/\//_/}. It will be looked like
> "${PORT_DBDIR}/cat_port/options". Here's example:
>
> In bsd.options.mk:
> -----------------------------------
> [...]
>
> OPTIONSFILE?= ${PORT_DBDIR}/${PKGORIGIN:S/\//_/}/options
> -----------------------------------
>
> Then add compatible in somewhere like this:
> -----------------------------------
> .if exist (${PORT_DBDIR}/${UNIQUENAME}/options)
> @${MV} ${PORT_DBDIR}/${UNIQUENAME} ${PORT_DBDIR}/${PKGORIGIN:S/\//_/}
> .endif
> -----------------------------------
>
> Then teach the portmaster about if the port has been moved to the
> different category or renamed (by read MOVED) then change the
> ${PORT_DBDIR}/${PKGORIGIN:S/\//_/}.
>
> What do anyone think of my suggest solution? I haven't test anything
> at all, which it's just what I have in my mind right now.
I was thinking of just axing the option completely and moving libffi to
lib_depend. glib20 already depends on libffi, so we also could get away
with removing it completely. But that doesn't resolve that this problem
might appear in other ports.
-Koop
>
> On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 11:30 AM, John W. O'Brien <john@saltant.com> wrote:
>> The following reply was made to PR ports/175276; it has been noted by GNATS.
>>
>> From: "John W. O'Brien" <john@saltant.com>
>> To: bug-followup@FreeBSD.org, jhein@symmetricom.com
>> Cc: freebsd-python@freebsd.org
>> Subject: Re: ports/175276: [patch] devel/py-gobject OPTIONSFILE eval order
>> problem
>> Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2013 12:23:35 -0500
>>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> 1. Should this be assigned to freebsd-python@?
>>
>> I realize that freebsd-gnome@ is the maintainer, but the root cause
>> lies with the way Python ports use PKGNAMEPREFIX, and this is not the
>> only affected port.
>>
>>
>> 2. Allow me to elaborate on the originator's description, for those
>> interested in the analysis.
>>
>> The common use of
>>
>> PKGNAMEPREFIX=${PYTHON_PKGNAMEPREFIX}
>>
>> depends on lazy evaluation, because the right-hand side is not defined
>> until the "pre" section of bsd.python.mk. Relatively early on in
>> bsd.port.mk, we get a default definition for UNIQUENAME based on
>> PKGNAMEPREFIX, unless LATEST_LINK is already defined, which doesn't
>> ordinarily happen until the "post" section of bsd.port.mk. Shortly
>> after that, between the "options" section and the "pre" section of
>> bsd.port.mk, we include bsd.options.mk which provides a default
>> definition of OPTIONSFILE, based on UNIQUENAME. At that point in
>> bsd.options.mk, we haven't yet included bsd.python.mk, so
>> PYTHON_PKGNAMEPREFIX is undefined. That means that when make reads the
>> saved options (inside the first pass through bsd.options.mk) thereby
>> triggering evaluation of OPTIONSFILE, it is as if we hadn't set
>> PKGNAMEPREFIX at all.
>>
>> As the originator points out, the do-config target, where make
>> performs the work of writing saved options, re-evaluates OPTIONSFILE
>> after bsd.python.mk sets PYTHON_PKGNAMEPREFIX, because do-config is
>> defined in the "post" section of bsd.port.mk.
>>
>>
>> 3. What ports are affected?
>>
>> Any port that sets PKGNAMEPREFIX equal to a make variable that is not
>> defined until the "pre" section or later, and fails to work-around the
>> staggered evaluation by defining one of UNIQUENAME, LATEST_LINK, or
>> OPTIONSFILE, is broken. It turns out that Python ports are
>> disproportionately affected, but mainly because Python ports are heavy
>> users of PKGNAMEPREFIX. The other PKGNAMEPREFIXs are:
>>
>> % egrep "^[A-Z_]+_PKGNAMEPREFIX" /usr/ports/Mk/* -h
>> APACHE_PKGNAMEPREFIX= ap${APACHE_VERSION}-
>> PYTHON_PKGNAMEPREFIX?= py*-
>> LUA_PKGNAMEPREFIX?= lua${LUA_VER_STR}-
>> PYTHON_PKGNAMEPREFIX= py${PYTHON_SUFFIX}-
>> RUBY_PKGNAMEPREFIX?= ruby${RUBY_SUFFIX}-
>>
>> But the distribution among these is heavily skewed toward Python.
>>
>> % find /usr/ports -depth 3 -type f -name Makefile \
>> | xargs egrep "^OPTIONS_DEFINE" -l \
>> | xargs egrep "^(OPTIONSFILE|UNIQUENAME|LATEST_LINK)" -L \
>> | xargs egrep '^PKGNAMEPREFIX=.*\$' -h \
>> | sed -e "s/[ ]//g" \
>> | sort | uniq -c | sort -n
>> 1 PKGNAMEPREFIX=${APACHE_PKGNAMEPREFIX}
>> 1 PKGNAMEPREFIX=${DMPKGNAMEPREFIX}
>> 1 PKGNAMEPREFIX=${DN3DPKGNAMEPREFIX}
>> 1 PKGNAMEPREFIX=${TGTARCH}-${TGTABI}-
>> 1 PKGNAMEPREFIX=php${PHP_VER}-
>> 2 PKGNAMEPREFIX=${LANG_PKGNAME}-
>> 22 PKGNAMEPREFIX=${PYTHON_PKGNAMEPREFIX}
>>
>> (That's supposed to be a tab and a space in the sed command, by the way.)
>>
>> So, let's focus on the 22 ports at the end.
>>
>> % find /usr/ports -depth 3 -type f -name Makefile \
>> | xargs egrep "^OPTIONS_DEFINE" -l \
>> | xargs egrep "^(OPTIONSFILE|UNIQUENAME|LATEST_LINK)" -L \
>> | xargs egrep '^PKGNAMEPREFIX=.*PYTHON' -l \
>> | cut -d/ -f4-5 | sort
>> astro/py-RO
>> audio/py-karaoke
>> audio/py-pyaudio
>> databases/py-sqlkit
>> devel/py-bison
>> devel/py-gobject
>> devel/py-hgsubversion
>> dns/ldns
>> graphics/py-PyX
>> graphics/py-gdal
>> mail/py-spf
>> math/py-sympy
>> net/py-medusa
>> security/arm
>> security/py-volatility
>> security/py-yara-editor
>> www/py-django_compressor
>> www/py-imdbpy
>> www/py-qp
>> www/py-qpy
>> www/py-rhodecode
>> www/py-satchmo
>>
>> I've checked every one of these by running
>>
>> make config-conditional
>>
>> twice in a row, and every one of them gave me a dialog the second
>> time, which implies that they are reading and writing saved options in
>> different places.
>>
>>
>> 4. How can we fix this?
>>
>> As I see it, there are at least the following alternatives.
>>
>> A) Require each maintainer to choose and implement their preferred
>> work-around, defining one or more of UNIQUENAME, LATEST_LINK, or
>> OPTIONSFILE. This is what most affected ports do already, and what the
>> originator is proposing for this port. 100 ports use
>> PYTHON_PKGNAMEPREFIX and OPTIONS_DEFINE. 74 of those set OPTIONSFILE,
>> 3 set LATEST_LINK, and 1 sets UNIQUENAME.
>>
>> In this case we should update the documentation in bsd.python.mk and
>> the Porter's Handbook to make the requirement clear, and consider
>> implementing a validation check somewhere in /usr/ports/Mk and/or
>> portlint.
>>
>> B) Cause part or all of the "pre" section of bsd.python.mk to be
>> processed earlier in bsd.port.mk, so that PYTHON_PKGNAMEPREFIX is
>> defined by the time we hit bsd.options.mk and need OPTIONSFILE for
>> reading. This would require additional analysis and testing to prevent
>> collateral breakage, and it would mean that bsd.python.mk becomes a
>> special case.
>>
>> I've skimmed the portion of bsd.python.mk prior to the definition of
>> PYTHON_PKGNAMEPREFIX, and nothing major jumps out. If there is
>> interest, I would be glad to prepare a patch at which to throw darts.
>>
>> C) Redefine OPTIONSFILE inside bsd.python.mk upon detecting that it
>> changes after defining PYTHON_PKGNAMEPREFIX, so that OPTIONSFILE is
>> the same when reading and writing saved options. I think we could do
>> this without affecting bsd.port.mk, or the ports that have already
>> implemented a workaround. It would mean that the default behavior when
>> using PYTHON_PKGNAMEPREFIX is to put saved options in
>> ${PORT_DBDIR}/${_PNP}${PORTNAME}/options, where _PNP is any literal
>> used along with PYTHON_PKGNAMEPREFIX in the port's Makefile, which
>> some might consider a POLA violation. On the other hand, doing one
>> thing consistently that works is better than doing something that
>> breaks your port unexpectedly.
>>
>> The big problem with this alternative is that PORTNAME by itself is
>> nowhere near unique enough to avoid conflict with other ports, and
>> would pretty much require bubbling up the definition of
>> PYTHON_PKGNAMEPREFIX from bsd.python.mk to each affected port.
>>
>>
>> 5. What is the best alternative?
>>
>> I find B very attractive because it frees maintainers from defining an
>> extra variable if they don't want (i.e. good defaults), but still
>> allows them to do so if they do want (i.e. good mechanism). It may be
>> difficult, hackish, and error-prone though.
>>
>> Option A would be easiest, and least traumatic both to individual
>> ports and to the ports infrastructure itself. For this reason alone, A
>> is probably the right choice for now.
>>
>> Sadly, C may be a complete non-starter due to the uniqueness problem,
>> but I wouldn't rule it out completely as a long-term follow-up to A.
>> The way I see it working out is in three phases. Phase one is to
>> implement option A but also invite maintainers to replace
>>
>> PKGNAMEPREFIX= ${PYTHON_PKGNAMEPREFIX}
>>
>> with
>>
>> PKGNAMEPREFIX= py${PYTHON_SUFFIX}-
>>
>> Phase two is to implement option C. Phase three is to invite
>> maintainers to remove the option A work-around if they like the
>> then-default behavior.
>>
>>
>> 6. Conclusion.
>>
>> I invite commentary and criticism, especially on the potential
>> resolutions I proposed. When we reach consensus, I will set about
>> preparing some patches, if need be, and seeking the help of a friendly
>> committer.
>>
>> Thank you for your kind indulgence.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> John
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
>> Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/
>>
>> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRKPsXAAoJEEdKvTwaez9w6yEIALFz+xrYLMdR1AhcPE2jEBd6
>> uR4dOZye8PQFTHbvhA/t20NFTroalr2kXF49+PTqR6kCFes+vNgjIlWUdKsIngYk
>> y5x32f60Bd/TtqPo6M2aeOE/M322U6cIH5jJhh3EBTEpm+Upd9enIetxR0NpjTnP
>> G+6yf8e7P4oBaYGSk01i3pah00OR2YeC87rtcEdgs1sM94PjxbXZGcuA+K9UbgVQ
>> 2WB8Z4IvrD3d2UqRnC8TRq1/bZyiPSHKNeMFBRJZ4gFe/wr9G0txDnH1LTy/q0Gq
>> kVHvdbApLYytMX/VmMMgDRnbzGS/kDMvIED8dJnwWf9pMLmzsi0pcVX/vH0m1Vw=
>> =q6eG
>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> _______________________________________________
>> freebsd-gnome@freebsd.org mailing list
>> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-gnome
>> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-gnome-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
>
>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201303191800.r2JI0169070287>