Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 19:18:34 -0800 (PST) From: "Steven G. Kargl" <kargl@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> To: eivind@yes.no (Eivind Eklund) Cc: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: bsd.port.mk bug??? Message-ID: <199803190318.TAA16903@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> In-Reply-To: <19980319012337.39204@follo.net> from Eivind Eklund at "Mar 19, 98 01:23:37 am"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
According to Eivind Eklund: > On Wed, Mar 18, 1998 at 04:11:36PM -0800, Steven G. Kargl wrote: > > According to Eivind Eklund: > > > On Wed, Mar 18, 1998 at 11:48:58AM -0800, Steven G. Kargl wrote: > > > > > > > There are 1078 Makefiles in my /usr/ports. I've conceded that I > > don't have the entire ports trees because japanese, korean, etc > > are irrelevant to me. Of those 1078 Makefiles, there are 59 > > references to the string "tk" in the CATEGORIES variable. There can be > > only 59 ports that have a problem with an obsolete tk.h. > > > Damn, the dependencies/categories-argument. The one I told you didn't hold. > OK, I'll go through the details: add #if defined(TK_HEADER_CONFLICT) || defined(TCL_HEADER_CONFLICT) #endif Around the buggy part of bsd.port.mk. Then in the Makefile of any port that consumes tk or tcl, add TK_HEADER_CONFLICT=YES TCL_HEADER_CONFLICT=YES This flags the problem once. > This isn't enough - there are ports that build conditionally on whether > things are present, even though they don't bring them in if they aren't > present. We don't know if any does that for TCL or TK, but it is likely > enough to require that every port be checked. See above. > And this isn't actually a cost which any of us are at all interested in > bearing. Thus, "the quick way out" - force people with bugged systems to > remove those header files. Yes, it is correct that this wouldn't be the > ultimate solution if we had infinite manpower. However, we don't, so that's > the solution we use. The users get a more consistent system as an added > benefit. Suppose I have a program foobar, and the person who wrote foobar decided to name a file tk.h. Now, suppose I install foobar in /usr/local and tk.h ends up in /usr/local/include. Furthermore, foobar needs tk.h to run (it may contain config info). Removing tk.h is not a good thing. > If you are prepared to go build all the ports with and without all the three > different TK-cases so you can add a 'builds OK with buggy TK' variable to > each of them - feel free to. Here are a few issues you'll have to contend > with: > Your issues are irrelevant. See above. > You can probably automate much of this, but the parts you can't automate is > going to be damn expensive. I'd suggest it would probably be more > productive to use that time for something else. An improvement to the text > in bsd.port.mk that tripped you would be a good start ;-) Agreed. The text needs some improvement. PS: I don't take things personal. -- Steve finger kargl@troutmask.apl.washington.edu http://troutmask.apl.washington.edu/~clesceri/kargl.html To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199803190318.TAA16903>