From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jun 24 22:00:29 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx2.freebsd.org (mx2.freebsd.org [69.147.83.53]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D95AD1065670 for ; Sun, 24 Jun 2012 22:00:29 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: from opti.dougb.net (hub.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::36]) by mx2.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1808014D9C8; Sun, 24 Jun 2012 22:00:22 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4FE78DF5.1090709@FreeBSD.org> Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 15:00:21 -0700 From: Doug Barton Organization: http://SupersetSolutions.com/ User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD i386; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120624 Thunderbird/13.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eitan Adler References: <4FE6F010.80609@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.2 OpenPGP: id=1A1ABC84 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Alex Kozlov , FreeBSD ports list Subject: Re: X11BASE still in use in ports X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 22:00:29 -0000 On 06/24/2012 11:05, Eitan Adler wrote: > On 24 June 2012 03:46, Doug Barton 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