Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2007 17:56:52 -0800 From: Ade Lovett <ade@FreeBSD.org> To: Jean-Yves Lefort <jylefort@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org>, freebsd ports <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>, Ade Lovett <ade@FreeBSD.org>, Kent Stewart <kstewart@owt.com> Subject: Re: Ports 104877 causing big problems Message-ID: <7CF1749C-3254-46AC-ABDD-BAB0D84ED7A1@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20070310023034.c5939c48.jylefort@FreeBSD.org> References: <45F1DDE2.5030404@FreeBSD.org> <BE66AB56-E0B4-420A-910D-9C10DB9AF24D@FreeBSD.org> <45F1EA6A.6070904@FreeBSD.org> <FB399CF7-11E2-4CC9-8C91-7D6850B7B2D8@FreeBSD.org> <20070310023034.c5939c48.jylefort@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Mar 09, 2007, at 17:30 , Jean-Yves Lefort wrote: > On Fri, 9 Mar 2007 17:05:31 -0800 > Ade Lovett <ade@FreeBSD.org> wrote: >> 3. Ports that *are* affected by this issue (assuming the issue still >> exists) can be fixed in a more relaxed manner (eg: a conversion of >> GNU_CONFIGURE=YES to USE_AUTOTOOLS=configurehack [implying >> GNU_CONFIGURE=YES]) than a time-T switch. It will also allow for >> such affected ports to have PORTREVISIONs bumped by the respective >> maintainers so as to more clearly identify improved operation to the >> consumers of those ports. > > All ports that use libtool to produce a program or shared library are > affected by this issue. This in turn implies that in case that there is an issue, and something needs to be done about it, then silently changing the semantics of GNU_CONFIGURE is not an appropriate solution. In order for the change, should it be required, to be communicated to all the consumers of the FreeBSD ports tree, and not that subset that happens to read esoteric discussions on a high volume mailing list, this requires that we use the tools available to us, ie: bumping PORTREVISION. 1. Identify if there is still a problem. 2a. If not, get on with something more productive. 2b. If yes, add a new stanza to USE_AUTOTOOLS, for simplicities sake we'll call it lthack, which defines GNU_CONFIGURE, and also wanders through the configuration files performing the appropriate hackery. 3. Maintainers that have ports affected by the issue go in to the Makefile, chunk GNU_CONFIGURE, add USE_AUTOTOOLS= lthack, bump PORTREVISION, and move on to the next one. The semantics of GNU_CONFIGURE itself don't change, so no chance of unintended infra-structural breakdown, full-tree operations are not adversely impacted by needlessly including additional Mk/bsd.*.mk files, and the update is limited to those consumers of the new USE_AUTOTOOLS stanza, without touching bsd.port.mk, thus not requiring a full -exp run. A rather more elegant solution than sledgehammer blows which, whilst occasionally needed, soak up huge amounts of resource, and are to be avoided if at all possible. - -aDe -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin) iD8DBQFF8hBlpXS8U0IvffwRAnosAKCQDwIx0ogGLiPi62ZxEsPSHE/6dwCfbdFk XcigDxQoehlavUuScsrabrk= =Im2J -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?7CF1749C-3254-46AC-ABDD-BAB0D84ED7A1>