On 8/4/19 4:06 AM, Klemens Nanni wrote:
On Sat, Aug 03, 2019 at 06:01:05PM -0400, Brian Callahan wrote:
Nope; can add MODPY_RUNDEP=No. Not sure what you're saying in the second
half there though. The build could use py2 or py3 (according to them) but I
used py2 because it worked fine. If you're suggesting we use py3 instead,
then ok sure.
configure.py says
## Python3 is incompatible.
Huh. Maybe I was looking at something else.
Looking further, this piss poor configure bash script can be entirely
avoided: just python directly (with 2.7 set explicitly)
That's good; that saves a bdep. And a patch.
CONFIGURE_SCRIPT = ${MODPY_BIN} ${WRKSRC}/make/configure.py
No need to create WRKBUILD manually, also a symlink is simpler and shorter:
post-extract:
ln -s freebsd.defs ${WRKSRC}/make/variant/openbsd.def
Whoops. That was just an oversight.
Thanks for commenting every patch. Do you plan on sending them upstream?
patch-make_include_gcc_defs a duplicate word:
+GCC.args.L = -L$(1) -L$(LOCALBASE)/lib -L$(LOCALBASE)/lib
Also an oversight; I'm sure that was supposed to be LOCALBASE/X11BASE.
But the X11BASE seems unnecessary.
patch-make_configure_py does more than the comment says: probing for
patch and tar for example should neither hurt nor fail. Also, did you
try simply passing the appropiate flags through CONFIGURE_ARGS instead
of patching some of the option defaults?
This isn't forcing option defaults; this is adding OpenBSD to the
platform-specific options. I do then call the appropriate options in the
port Makefile (--disable-gtk-update-checks specifically).
Patching out things like patch and tar will be helpful for updates--if
new deps slip in, I want the build to fail hard so I can make a decision
rather than possibly silently continue.
OK kn with CONFIGURE_SCRIPT and Python 2.x as per above; transcodes
fine for me on amd64. The rest of my comments are nits, optional or can
still be improved in-tree.
I was under the impression we were not doing ${MODPY_DEFAULT_VERSION_2}.
See https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-ports&m=153632201209366&w=2 for
sthen@'s opinion.
~Brian
