Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2024 12:43:21 -0700 From: Kevin Bowling <kevin.bowling@kev009.com> To: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@freebsd.org> Cc: Daniel Engberg <diizzy@freebsd.org>, ports-committers@freebsd.org, dev-commits-ports-all@freebsd.org, dev-commits-ports-main@freebsd.org Subject: Re: git: 0bdf5887f0d2 - main - graphics/tiff: Update to 4.7.0 and switch to CMake Message-ID: <CAK7dMtAr4Le6JA_VPGXb-aLUiBkTRLP3BpYJC=O40Sc1Sjn-5Q@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <Zwf459b9bCrpegd1@FreeBSD.org> References: <202410091943.499JhXKg087859@gitrepo.freebsd.org> <CAK7dMtBHq5kbQU4DXW%2B7xOLHYo%2BVRa%2B0h=ra0b-_xW3gvGsXWg@mail.gmail.com> <Zwf459b9bCrpegd1@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Oct 10, 2024 at 8:55=E2=80=AFAM Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@freebsd.org= > wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 09, 2024 at 02:28:01PM -0700, Kevin Bowling wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 9, 2024 at 12:43???PM Daniel Engberg <diizzy@freebsd.org> w= rote: > > > > > > The branch main has been updated by diizzy: > > > > > > URL: https://cgit.FreeBSD.org/ports/commit/?id=3D0bdf5887f0d2cc9f14ea= 0cc10ed9e371028dd620 > > > > > > commit 0bdf5887f0d2cc9f14ea0cc10ed9e371028dd620 > > > Author: Daniel Engberg <diizzy@FreeBSD.org> > > > AuthorDate: 2024-10-09 19:12:09 +0000 > > > Commit: Daniel Engberg <diizzy@FreeBSD.org> > > > CommitDate: 2024-10-09 19:43:25 +0000 > > > > > > graphics/tiff: Update to 4.7.0 and switch to CMake > > > > I believe this might have come up in the past but I do not remember > > any conclusion. > > > > Upon a quick look at Debian and Fedora (thus accounting for the > > majority of all *nix builds/usage) I do not see either using CMake: > > * https://sources.debian.org/src/tiff/4.6.0-2/debian/rules/#L16 > > * https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libtiff/blob/rawhide/f/libtiff.spe= c#_68 > > +1 to reverting back to GNU autotools which entail far less dependencies. > I've lost count already when I have to revert Daniel's CMake switches in > various ports to unbreak them in my environments. It was common to half- > jokingly wish autotools to die, but they remain stable, working, and not > asking too much, thus being clear winner among other build options. >From a maintainer/developer's view, Autoconf is an arcane mix of shell, M4 so the hate is understandable. From a packager's view it is nearly ideal for historical interial reasons and one key point: the thing that Autoconf gets right is being centered around feature test macros and most alternative build systems miss that point and center around preconceived notions of what a platform is or has. Ted Tso (of ext2 fame) wrote a nice piece about this on TUHS recently. This, for instance, makes it easy to taste APIs and accommodate i.e. MFCs back to arbitrary FreeBSD versions without a fragile maintenance of checking specific __FreeBSD_version or whatever the case may be. It also lends to putting arbitrary portability in the source code instead of the build system. > In other words, don't pull CMake when you can pull nothing (/bin/sh and > friends are part of the base system). I think one of the previous justifications for this toil was speed which seems dubious because now a very light library like libtiff will have to wait around for a high cardinality C++ project to build. All of this doesn't really matter if CMake is the clear choice of upstream. But that is not the case here. > ./danfe
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAK7dMtAr4Le6JA_VPGXb-aLUiBkTRLP3BpYJC=O40Sc1Sjn-5Q>