On 16/08/2025 17:37, Jeremy Drake via Cygwin wrote:
On Sat, 16 Aug 2025, ASSI via Cygwin wrote:
Jeremy Drake via Cygwin writes:
I was trying to clean up my workflows now that llvm 20.1.8-2 is published,
and I came across another possible setup bug. It seems that the -P option
doesn't accept a package name that is provided rather than being the
actual name of a pacakge.
>>>>>> llvm20.1-devel is provided by llvm-devel 20.1.8-2, but passing
that to -P
results in the message: Package 'libllvm20.1-devel' not found. However,
libclang-devel 20.1.8-2 requires libllvm20.1-devel, and selecting that
version results in "Install libllvm-devel 20.1.8-2 (automatically added)",
so requires does respect provides.
Sorry, but it seems you're misusing provides
Quite possibly, I'm still trying to figure things out ;)
(and I'm not clear on
whether there should be any dots in the names of provides, but I think
it's best avoided). Provides are meant to guide dependency resolution
among a group of packages that belong together, not as an alias for the
install package. It's the installed base package that delivers a
provide that ensures that the versions are compatible, so it does not
make sense for each and every package to have their own versioned
provide, which would imply that one could mix and match between say, lld
and llvm-devel versions.
I've read this a dozen times and I still have no idea what this is
trying to say.
Regardless, BUILD_REQUIRES is documented to allow provides, and scallywag
passes BUILD_REQUIRES entries to setup -P, so there's a bug in there
somewhere.
There's no difference as far as the depsolver is concerned between a
solution satisfies P where P is implicitly provided by a package P, or
explicitly provided: by P'.
But there's a very poor separation between UI and data-model in setup,
so currently the command line options are converted into a UI state of
package selections, which is then fed into the depsolver.
So yes, I think it's right to call it a bug, but fixing it will requires
substantial work.
(A lesser issue is that cygport warns that the provided name is not
installed when the package that provides it is in fact installed, but this
is probably a limitation of the installed package database not recording
what the installed packages provide)
Yes, exactly.
We should be recording all the package's metadata, but installed.db just
records the name.
--
Problem reports: https://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ: https://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation: https://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info: https://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
