Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 15:00:21 -0700 From: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> To: Eitan Adler <lists@eitanadler.com> Cc: Alex Kozlov <spam@rm-rf.kiev.ua>, FreeBSD ports list <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: X11BASE still in use in ports Message-ID: <4FE78DF5.1090709@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <CAF6rxg=Mv0j4QnK0QTZDxVx=TqwNJMg0NSNHxKbOLwK9w=wbrQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <4FE6F010.80609@FreeBSD.org> <CAF6rxg=Mv0j4QnK0QTZDxVx=TqwNJMg0NSNHxKbOLwK9w=wbrQ@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 06/24/2012 11:05, Eitan Adler wrote: > On 24 June 2012 03:46, Doug Barton <dougb@freebsd.org> wrote: >> I noticed a failure in one of my ports today while doing an upgrade, and >> was embarrassed to find that it was due to my port still using X11BASE. >> That led me to do a quick grep of the tree, which seems to indicate that >> there are a non-zero number of uses of it which seem to be erroneous: > > When the patch was committed a exp-run was done. Which isn't even close to being a thorough treatment. The *only* way to do this kind of work is with grep through the entire tree. That should have been done before the variable was removed. > At the time any > errors found were either fixed or worked around (by manually adding a > X11BASE definition to the port's makefile). > >> http://people.freebsd.org/~dougb/x11base-ports.txt >> >> Note, some of these are actually Ok, I haven't made an attempt to filter >> them out yet. >> >> Is there any interest in cleaning these up? Should we restore the >> definition of X11BASE until all of the ports that are using it are fixed? > > I'd rather add it locally as a workaround to each port rather than add > it globally. I fixed all the ones in ak's list. I don't see the sense of adding X11BASE= to the port rather than just fixing it properly, so I did the latter. FWIW, there seem to be 3 categories of problems in ak's list. First, the variable isn't reached without an option being enabled (this is why exp-runs are not sufficient). Second, the X11BASE was redundant, ala: -I${LOCALBASE}/include -I${X11BASE}/include Third, it was just plain broken. A lot of the ports in the latter category were fonts, which may explain some of the complaints we've received about font-cache not being run properly. Doug -- This .signature sanitized for your protection
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4FE78DF5.1090709>