From owner-freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Feb 2 00:30:06 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-ports-bugs@hub.freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-ports-bugs@hub.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56F8116A420 for ; Thu, 2 Feb 2006 00:30:06 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [216.136.204.21]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9C4143D46 for ; Thu, 2 Feb 2006 00:30:05 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (gnats@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k120U5Al030674 for ; Thu, 2 Feb 2006 00:30:05 GMT (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.13.4/8.13.4/Submit) id k120U5MV030673; Thu, 2 Feb 2006 00:30:05 GMT (envelope-from gnats) Resent-Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2006 00:30:05 GMT Resent-Message-Id: <200602020030.k120U5MV030673@freefall.freebsd.org> Resent-From: FreeBSD-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org (GNATS Filer) Resent-To: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org Resent-Reply-To: FreeBSD-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org, Ade Lovett Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19CFA16A420 for ; Thu, 2 Feb 2006 00:29:41 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from ade@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [216.136.204.21]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D816743D48 for ; Thu, 2 Feb 2006 00:29:40 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from ade@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (ade@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k120Teet030611 for ; Thu, 2 Feb 2006 00:29:40 GMT (envelope-from ade@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from ade@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.13.4/8.13.4/Submit) id k120TeZ0030610; Thu, 2 Feb 2006 00:29:40 GMT (envelope-from ade) Message-Id: <200602020029.k120TeZ0030610@freefall.freebsd.org> Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2006 00:29:40 GMT From: Ade Lovett To: FreeBSD-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org X-Send-Pr-Version: 3.113 Cc: Subject: ports/92711: PERL_{BUILD,RUN}_DEPENDS fundamentally broken X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Ade Lovett List-Id: Ports bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2006 00:30:06 -0000 >Number: 92711 >Category: ports >Synopsis: PERL_{BUILD,RUN}_DEPENDS fundamentally broken >Confidential: no >Severity: serious >Priority: high >Responsible: freebsd-ports-bugs >State: open >Quarter: >Keywords: >Date-Required: >Class: sw-bug >Submitter-Id: current-users >Arrival-Date: Thu Feb 02 00:30:04 GMT 2006 >Closed-Date: >Last-Modified: >Originator: Ade Lovett >Release: FreeBSD 6.0-STABLE i386 >Organization: >Environment: Not relevant. >Description: Current implementation of PERL_{BUILD,RUN}_DEPENDS is fundamentally broken: 1. ports flagged in PERL_{BUILD,RUN}_DEPENDS do not make it into the equivalent {BUILD,RUN}_DEPENDS list. (a) dependencies will not be registered (b) package building clusters and tinderboxes will attempt to recompile the port every single time (and often fail mysteriously) as opposed to using a pre-built package (c) INDEX for such ports will be incomplete, breaking tools such as portupgrade that rely on such information 2. the "convenience" of such a function is minimal. Indeed, it's not even possible to write the actual module name (eg: Foo::Bar), rather it has to be manually altered to Foo-Bar So we're comparing: BUILD_DEPENDS= ${SITE_PERL}/Foo/Bar.pm:${PORTSDIR}/... vs PERL_BUILD_DEPENDS= Foo-Bar:${PORTSDIR}/... saving a whole 11 characters. >How-To-Repeat: Not relevant. >Fix: The current half-baked implementation should be removed with extreme prejudice before it spreads further than the handful of ports that are currently using it. This is not to say that a PERL_{BUILD,RUN}_DEPENDS concept is broken in and of itself, however the major issues listed above far, far outweigh any possible convenience. Particularly as we're coming up to 5.5/6.1, an implementation should be developed within the confines of devel/portmk, thoroughly tested to address the issues raised above, then, and only then, let loose in the tree. >Release-Note: >Audit-Trail: >Unformatted: