Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2026 18:47:05 +0900 From: Tomoaki AOKI <junchoon@dec.sakura.ne.jp> To: "Edward Sanford Sutton, III" <mirror176@hotmail.com> Cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: What is a FLAVOR and how to unbreak ports? Message-ID: <20260727184705.0f0356d700c06e070edf4ae2@dec.sakura.ne.jp> In-Reply-To: <SA1PR11MB8811F3226FA85F2D836AE4D2E6CC2@SA1PR11MB8811.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> References: <add809af-41f1-4f3a-9f8d-246f2a01ec36@comcast.net> <CALH631nghtQpj%2BLoxsx3SL7tfr_URbW7pHRZScLpyki8HvBjBg@mail.gmail.com> <6ce75735-75f7-4852-814c-91b8105692e6@comcast.net> <SA1PR11MB88113E9A84985B293F61293BE6CC2@SA1PR11MB8811.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <f73caf78-c17c-40e6-9b02-c6137725029c@comcast.net> <SA1PR11MB8811F3226FA85F2D836AE4D2E6CC2@SA1PR11MB8811.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On Mon, 27 Jul 2026 01:25:00 -0700
"Edward Sanford Sutton, III" <mirror176@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/26/26 19:43, Steve Kargl wrote:
> > On 7/26/26 18:41, Edward Sanford Sutton, III wrote:
> >> Flavors are a way to have separate packages created for different
> >> configurations of a port. That way users of pkg do not need to go
> >> manually build software for relatively common software variation
> >> possibilities that they may want or need in place of a single default
> >> set of options.
> >
> > Yeah, I read the porter's documentation. I could not find where
> > it mentions a comprehensive list of the FLAVORs. There is no
> > discussion of how one can query for the list of FLAVORs.
>
> Also not present in the normal handbook when talking about using the
> ports tree. Unless I'm mistaken, people shouldn't be directed to the
> porter's handbook unless trying to create or modify ports instead of
> just use them. Maybe I missed it, but I didn't find any clear definition
> of relevant variables and commands in /usr/ports/Mk files except as
> comments above sections of what is being done with blocks of code;
> normally many variables and targets are described in comments at the top
> of bsd.port.mk and if not then its in the relevant other files in there.
I think FreeBSD project is directing regular users to pkg,
unless non-default options are needed.
So anyone want non-default options are worth understanding Porter's
Handbook, as they are NOT regular users.
And I think the reason FLAVOR is introduced would be to introduce
new way to build ports with different option on pkg build cluster
in pararrel (not exclusive, unlike historical OPTIONS) for regular
users.
> >> On 7/26/26 13:18, Steve Kargl wrote:
> >>> On 7/26/26 12:51, Gleb Popov wrote:
> >>>> On Sun, Jul 26, 2026 at 10:43 PM Steve Kargl <kargls@comcast.net>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Updating a laptop that had a year old FreeBSD on it
> >>>>> to top-of-tree.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> % portmaster -Byd --force-config sqlite3 |& tee sgk.log
> >>>>
> >>>> Try updating libclc first using portmaster or plain make.
> >>>
> >>> I did try plain make in libclc. See the end of original email.
> >>> make dies with an error about llvm15 no longer being supported.
> >>> If llvm15 is no longer supported on fbsd 16, then the libclc
> >>> Makefile should simply skip trying to build for llvm15.
> >>>
> >>>> Figure out what flavor you need by looking at the installed
> >>>> package's name
> >>>
> >>> That's the question. What is a FLAVOR and how do I determine what
> >>> FLAVOR is the right flavor?
> >>>
> >>>> pkg info -x libclc
> >>>>
> >>>> If going the plain make route, append FLAVOR=llvmXY to make invocation.
> >>>
> >>> Is there a comprehensive list of FLAVORs? 'man make.conf' does not
> >>> mention FLAVOR. Is it possible to set FLAVORS there?
>
> Maybe try adding the following to make.conf:
>
> .if {.CURDIR:M*/devel/libclc}
> FLAVOR= llvm19
> .endif
>
> or the more dynamic FLAVOR line I suggest below for the port's makefile
> itself to avoid needing to edit in the future. I'm not sure if FreeBSD16
> is on llvm19 as default or not. I don't think '{}' characters are needed
> but I have a series of these separated by '||' to try to override a
> different variable and forget if it worked or not.
You can build, for example, with `make FLAVOR=llvm19` at devel/libclc.
And (not sure about ports-mgmt/portmaster, though) ports upgrading
tools could accept devel/libclc@llvm19 as devel/libclc with FLAVOR
llvm19 set.
For example, I've created this script
https://brew.bsd.cafe/TomAoki/sh_scripts/src/branch/main/poudlist-all
and poudriere sanely accept the generated list by this script.
> >> Flavors are a property of each port individually and not an
> >> externally defined property; some different ports use common flavors
> >> like 'nox11' but there is no hard rule to it. In the ports tree you
> >> can list flavors with `make -C /usr/ports/devel/libclc -VFLAVORS` and
> >> drop - C if you run it in the port's folder.
> >
> > Well, that's inconvenient, but that make command should be provided
> > in the porter's documentation. At the moment, portmaster dies
> > with some mystery error. Going to /usr/ports/devel/libclc and type
> > 'make' leads to all sorts of fun. libclc dies because llvm15
> > is no longer supported; so, well, the port shouldn't even try
> > to build that flavor.
>
> FLAVOR is the variable for how to set which flavor will be built and
> 'all' is a special value for building all of them but I don't know if
> that is a ports tree thing or a poudriere thing. If the user doesn't
> define a default, the port doesn't define a default, and a port that
> called it as a dependency doesn't call it as a default, then it will be
> built as the first entry in the variable FLAVORS. Valid values are
> supposed to be listed in the FLAVORS variable.
> `cd /usr/ports/devel/libclc;make -VFLAVORS` isn't a special syntax
> for flavors but just a general syntax that tells make to list the
> contents of the variable that follows the -V. I learned it years ago and
> use it to inspect what variables are set to when looking at how ports
> work to learn, fix them, and try to write them.
> I don't see why we wouldn't have a flavors target so users can type
> `make flavors-list. I usually try to ignore that flavors exist and just
> use options and setting/overriding variables but once I become aware of
> them I have tried to adopt use of a few, usually either so a default is
> overridden that is not an option (should that usually be considered a
> bug?) or so I can have multiple packages built so I can flip between
> them without waiting on another rebuild.
>
> >> For manually running make, `make -C /usr/ports/devel/libclc
> >> FLAVOR=llvm17` would be an example of overriding it. Not sure if there
> >> are other ways to express it.
> >
> > That's the problem. There are apparently 8 flavors. How do I determine
> > I need llvm17 instead of llvm20?
>
> Just as flavors have so little documentation in the handbooks and
> Makefile comments, they seem to have little documentation in many ports.
> Port maintainers could tell users about flavors in pkg-message though
> that seems out of place and becomes bloat when it ends up in every
> package but a pkg-message or COMMENT customized to say which flavor it
> is would be a good idea.
> I used llvm17 as an example to say you can do it, not that you
> should. I'd assume that `make -VLLVM_DEFAULT` would have been the
> correct number to use if dependent port(s) didn't try to force a flavor.
> Ports I've found that depend on libclc seem to use the value as listed
> as `make -VLLVM_PORT:T` Since you are only installing it as a
> dependency, its best to check what was requested by the dependent port
> but all ports depending on libclc directly all seem to force it to a
> particular one. Have you tried to alter the default version of llvm or
> anything in your make.conf already?
The error for llvm15 is invoked by the lines
> .if ${FLAVOR} == llvm15
> BROKEN_FreeBSD_16= Base libc++ is now too fresh for Clang 15 to compile
> .endif
in devel/libclc/Makefile. So 15 is listed in
> FLAVORS= ${15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22:L:S/^/llvm/}
line for base at 15.* and before. Not a bug unless this is invoked for
base at 15.* or before.
There's possibility that stable/15 that have llvm/clang21 in base
is also broken, while 15.0 and 15.1 (having llvm/clang19 in base)
is possibly not.
> >> Some changes I assume should happen:
> >> 1. The default of libclc should be reconsidered if it is broken on
> >> a platform unless it is being actively worked on. Why are we
> >> defaulting to the oldest compiler, a compiler not included as a base
> >> compiler on any supported FreeBSD version, and not even having a
> >> comment as to why?
>
> I revise my statement. Unless libclc always needs to be built with or
> have compatibility with llvm15, then the if/endif lines around the
> broken and broken should be replaced with something like(untested):
>
> FEATURES_FreeBSD_16= ${16 17 18 19 20 21 22:L:S/^/llvm/}
>
> to remove the existence of that being a choice. If 15 should still be a
> choice and broken for FreeBSD16 then instead we should have BROKEN
> wrapped with if tests of both the OS version and the FLAVOR. Maybe the
> BROKEN test is okay as it is, but at the very least I'd think something
> like(untested):
>
> FLAVOR?= ${LLVM_PORT:T}
>
> just after the flavors list would fix it any time it has not been
> specified. The only ports I have found that depend on devel/libclc are
> graphics/mesa-dri, graphics/mesa-devel, and graphics/mesa-libs . Since
> those all request a flavor set to the same I'd assume it is fine to make
> it be the default version unless any of them ever conditionally change
> that (didn't observe them doing so but only quickly skimmed).
>
> > Good question.
> >
> >
> >>> In the old days, one could cd into any directory under /usr/port
> >>> and simply type 'make'.
> >>
> >> Unless things are broken. Having been building things since 2004,
> >> you can usually find broken things when you look.
> >
> > I've been building ports since its inception. In fact, I was the
> > maintainer for lang/f2c and few others prior to the creation of
> > portmgr. portmgr broke lang/f2c, I received daily complaints it
> > was broken, and it only wasted a few weeks of my time trying to
> > figure out what portmgr did. I dropped maintainership decades
> > ago due to that experience.
> >
> > at over 30,000 port
> >> folders, its hard to have the tree in a state where 'nothing' fails.
> >
> > Sure, I find a number of issues every time I need to rebuild
> > ports. I fix/workaround the issue and move on with life. The
> > math/arpack-ng port now has a mpich and openmpi flavor, because
> > I got tired of editing out the hardcoded use of mpich and asked
> > for either 'none' or 'openmpi' build option. Unfortunately,
> > math/octave has a hardcoded dependency on arpack-ng@mpich. Fun
> > times.
> >
> >>> My actual problem is building devel/node24, which dies with an
> >>> error:
> >>> ld.lld: error: undefined symbol: sqlite3session_patchset.
> >>
> >> I'd have to see a more complete error log to guess properly.
> >
> > I've found a fix. It seems that node24 requires sqlite3 built
> > with the sessions compile option set. For some reason, it was
> > unset when I last built it on my system. I suppose default
> > options change over time.
>
> Sounds like /usr/ports/UPDATING:20251130
--
Tomoaki AOKI <junchoon@dec.sakura.ne.jp>
home |
help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20260727184705.0f0356d700c06e070edf4ae2>