Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2007 23:49:02 -0800 From: Ade Lovett <ade@FreeBSD.org> To: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd ports <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>, Ade Lovett <ade@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: Ports 104877 causing big problems Message-ID: <45808CB8-07C8-4680-A11D-8982BD8A6B52@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <45F2546F.60401@FreeBSD.org> References: <45F1DDE2.5030404@FreeBSD.org> <BE66AB56-E0B4-420A-910D-9C10DB9AF24D@FreeBSD.org> <45F1EA6A.6070904@FreeBSD.org> <FB399CF7-11E2-4CC9-8C91-7D6850B7B2D8@FreeBSD.org> <20070310023034.c5939c48.jylefort@FreeBSD.org> <7CF1749C-3254-46AC-ABDD-BAB0D84ED7A1@FreeBSD.org> <45F2546F.60401@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mar 09, 2007, at 22:47 , Doug Barton wrote: > On it's face I find the idea of bumping PORTREVISION for every port > that uses libtool in any form a sort of silly proposition. The > change in behavior was introduced in Mk/*, I think it's reasonable > to expect that the fix happen there too. Ok. Let's take this opportunity right here to take a step back and look at the rather larger picture. Prior to bsd.autotools.mk, we had a situation where, by default, .la files were not installed - this made FreeBSD substantially different from both Linux and, somewhat more importantly, pkgsrc. At the same time, there have been an ever-increasing number of ports that *required* .la files to be installed (KDE being a good example here), in the cases of dynamically loading plugins into an application framework. So the decision was made, with plenty of opportunities for discussion, to install .la files by default (along with a whole ton of other infra-structural changes, ie: the migration to USE_AUTOTOOLS, and the introduction of bsd.autotools.mk where the magick happens). End result, FreeBSD is now considerably more "in-line" with Linux and pkgsrc with respect to autotools handling. It's by no means perfect, but it's *a lot* better than it was. Current future plans involve suitable wrapper ports (very similar to Gentoo, given that it's the closest Linux to FreeBSD in terms of its ability to build most everything from source). Anything that touches autotools has far-reaching consequences. Killing off libtool-1.3.x took something like 5 full -exp runs to iron out all the edge cases and even after that, there was still some fallout which had to be addressed. A *lot* of time and effort had to be spent in order to make this happen. So, seemingly innocuous changes like changing the semantics of what a well-established port variable like GNU_CONFIGURE has potentially far- reaching consequences. The armchair generals are more than welcome to debate to their hearts content the idyllic solution, but there are real-world constraints that prevent such nirvana. As autotools maintainer, I have laid out a potential course of action to this (as yet unproven) problem - it's not related to +REQUIRED_BY, as already pointed out. Braino on my part, this is compile and run- time issues, not a ports dependency issue. My apologies. I'm certainly willing to listen to other options, however they must be at least as non-intrusive as the suggested course of action - hint: changing the semantics of GNU_CONFIGURE, or otherwise touching bsd.port.mk, is considerably more intrusive. I don't for one minute pretend to be the absolute authority on autotools, however I believe that I happen to know a reasonable amount, resulting from my shepherding of them over the past few years. Of course, if someone else wants to step up to the plate and continue the good fight, that's fine by me. Send me your freefall login, and the ports and infrastructure will be handed over in a heartbeat. -aDe
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?45808CB8-07C8-4680-A11D-8982BD8A6B52>