Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2007 01:23:23 +0100 From: Jean-Yves Lefort <jylefort@FreeBSD.org> To: Ade Lovett <ade@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org>, Kent Stewart <kstewart@owt.com>, freebsd ports <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Ports 104877 causing big problems Message-ID: <20070310012323.26793600.jylefort@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <BE66AB56-E0B4-420A-910D-9C10DB9AF24D@FreeBSD.org> References: <45F1DDE2.5030404@FreeBSD.org> <BE66AB56-E0B4-420A-910D-9C10DB9AF24D@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--Signature=_Sat__10_Mar_2007_01_23_23_+0100_d2r_1Z6jpMgb0WBd Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Fri, 9 Mar 2007 14:34:31 -0800 Ade Lovett <ade@FreeBSD.org> wrote: > On Mar 09, 2007, at 14:21 , Doug Barton wrote: > > Can we have some response from Ade, and/or portmgr on when this might > > be fixed? I would agree that the current behavior is suboptimal. > > I'm pretty certain that this has been addressed with recent updates > to devel/libtool15 and devel/libltdl15 -- certainly it solved the > gnucash problem that had a similar failure case. No. > The patch as it stands in 104877 is flawed in that it brings in > bsd.autotools.mk merely with a GNU_CONFIGURE enabled and as such > makes tree-wide changes to those ports that use this stanza, but not > a USE_AUTOTOOLS stanza, thus giving no incentive for port maintainers > themselves to ensure that the fixes are punted back upstream. The patch is not flawed. bsd.autotools.mk has to be pulled in when GNU_CONFIGURE is set because many ports use libtool and yet do not set USE_AUTOTOOLS=libtool. The included libtool files must therefore be patched. > So, item (1): does the problem actually still exist with a port using > the in-tree devel/libtool15 (via USE_AUTOTOOLS= libtool:15[:env]. If > yes, empirical evidence will be required as an addendum to the PR. > If no, then we're done. No evidence is needed. Your recent commits have had no influence on the problem and it therefore still stands. Furthermore, ports that use their included version of libtool rather than the system libtool are also affected. > Item (2). The patch as stands will not go in, since that part that > is bsd.port.mk fundamentally violates POLA. If such a mechanism is > required, then it will need to be developed as an addendum to the > existing USE_AUTOTOOLS stanza, so that it is *very* clear which ports > need to be upstream-fixed. If you don't like my solution, provide one yourself. You are the maintainer, and you introduced that regression by resurrecting .la files. -- Jean-Yves Lefort jylefort@FreeBSD.org http://lefort.be.eu.org/ --Signature=_Sat__10_Mar_2007_01_23_23_+0100_d2r_1Z6jpMgb0WBd Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFF8fp7yzD7UaO4AGoRAidrAJsEK4/Z2bM/+Hr1psu695vC86XLTACfVKMJ a8GKBBmgDTtafXNmd09Z+Eo= =vQUa -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Signature=_Sat__10_Mar_2007_01_23_23_+0100_d2r_1Z6jpMgb0WBd--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070310012323.26793600.jylefort>