Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2007 15:47:59 +0200 From: Pav Lucistnik <pav@FreeBSD.org> To: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@leidinger.net> Cc: gnome@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ports/115870: [DEPS] graphics/cairo reduce X dependencies Message-ID: <1188913679.28297.190.camel@pav.hide.vol.cz> In-Reply-To: <20070904153844.41fb9423@deskjail> References: <200709032101.l83L1qr1018167@freefall.freebsd.org> <20070904000756.756b72fc@deskjail> <1188894171.28297.82.camel@pav.hide.vol.cz> <20070904111144.6c3fb68c@deskjail> <1188897490.28297.129.camel@pav.hide.vol.cz> <20070904114601.48f36f42@deskjail> <1188899959.28297.148.camel@pav.hide.vol.cz> <20070904131305.25c46cc8@deskjail> <1188906263.28297.160.camel@pav.hide.vol.cz> <20070904153844.41fb9423@deskjail>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
[-- Attachment #1 --]
Alexander Leidinger píše v út 04. 09. 2007 v 15:38 +0200:
> Increasing the number from e.g. 3 to e.g. 20 does not slow down that
No, only tenfold.
> > You are operating on false assumptions here. Let me explain how libtool
> > on FreeBSD work. It explicitly passes all indirectly required libraries
> > to the linker during build. So they all get recorded in the shared
>
> AFAIK it operated like this in the past, but not now anymore (it was
> one of the complains des(?) had with the autotools ports, it is not
> present in the old libtool versions, but AFAIK it is present in a
> recent libtool version). I will check this to make sure it works and
> come back to you with the result.
Go check; I believe it still does this.
> BTW: I just checked for gtk20 after my last mail. They have .pc files
> for the installed and uninstalled case. The uninstalled case lists
> the .la file in the build directory together with all dependencies. The
> installed case lists the compiler flags together with all dependencies.
> I'm in the process of testing the removal of the dependencies from
> the .pc file for the installed case.
I seriously doubt gtk20 port maintainers will accept FreeBSD specific
hackery on installed .pc files.
> And regarding the "better be safe than broken" part... we all know
> about the mails after a KDE/GNOME/X11/... update. So far there where
> bugreports all the time after a major upgrade. Some problems are
> because of missing dependencies, some are because of missed
> portrevision bumps. By listing the explicit depends you get rid of some
> complains (no missed libs, ability to check for more affected ports
> than now). And by adding a check-script to pointyhat runs, you can even
> get the big picture and are not limited to your local testing.
I'd like to split the debate into two parts
1) dependency validation script, a tool for maintainers, portlint style
A good thing, no question.
2) recording all indirect dependencies explicitly in ports
A bad thing, a total no go.
This is my last mail about the bullet (2). You just can't persuade me to
change my mind on this.
--
Pav Lucistnik <pav@oook.cz>
<pav@FreeBSD.org>
If God is perfect, why did He create discontinuous functions?
[-- Attachment #2 --]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (FreeBSD)
iD8DBQBG3WIPntdYP8FOsoIRApGMAKDLn+lvnQWDI9Zal9QX5+K4X+93/ACgoFqs
durYQEL/d1/xAUIXmh7coZU=
=jlXv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1188913679.28297.190.camel>