Re: Instafix for FreeBSD ports brokenness on 10.0?
Thanks for the patch, but it does not work properly. There is also a
freebsd[123]* a.out detector which needs to be disabled as well,
otherwise only (for example) a libiconv.so.3.0 appears, no libiconv.so.3
or libiconv.so symlink.
In addition, the below patch is for bsd.port.mk in the src repository,
so it only affects 10.x.
With this, I can build things like libiconv and gettext on a
10.0-CURRENT system without needing even more horrible hacks like faking
uname. Please test as some additional tweaks may be necessary.
The proper fix is indeed in autotools, but I think it is inappropriate
to keep head effectively frozen until this problem can be fixed
properly.
Index: share/mk/bsd.port.mk
===
--- share/mk/bsd.port.mk(revision 225917)
+++ share/mk/bsd.port.mk(working copy)
@@ -14,3 +14,15 @@
.include bsd.own.mk
.include ${BSDPORTMK}
+
+.if !defined(BEFOREPORTMK) !defined(INOPTIONSMK)
+# Work around an issue where FreeBSD 10.0 is detected as FreeBSD 1.x.
+run-autotools-fixup:
+ find ${WRKSRC} -type f \( -name config.libpath -o \
+ -name config.rpath -o -name configure -o -name libtool.m4 \) \
+ -exec sed -i '' -e 's/freebsd1\*)/SHOULDNOTMATCHANYTHING1)/' \
+ -e 's/freebsd\[123\]\*)/SHOULDNOTMATCHANYTHING2)/' {} +
+
+.ORDER: run-autotools run-autotools-fixup do-configure
+do-configure: run-autotools-fixup
+.endif
(Sorry for the messed up threading, I am not subscribed to ports@.)
--
Jilles Tjoelker
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Instafix for FreeBSD ports brokenness on 10.0?
* Jilles Tjoelker jil...@stack.nl, 20111002 18:23: The proper fix is indeed in autotools, but I think it is inappropriate to keep head effectively frozen until this problem can be fixed properly. What I think is even a bigger disgrace, is that we haven't even added the autotools fixes to our own packages in Ports. This means that people running FreeBSD 9.0-RELEASE with a binary libtool package will not be able to generate future-proof source tarballs. This is not just a 10.0-bug, it's a bug in general. -- Ed Schouten e...@80386.nl WWW: http://80386.nl/ pgp5uKANdFZbe.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Instafix for FreeBSD ports brokenness on 10.0?
On 2011-Sep-30 17:10:20 -0400, Jim Trigg jtr...@spamcop.net wrote: I have to admit that my reaction is not so much Why won't you fix ports for 10.0 as Why was 9.0 dropped out of CURRENT and 10.0 introduced before 9.0 went STABLE? FreeBSD releases are from CVS/SVN branches, rather than the main trunk. Thus, before 9.0 can be released, the 9.x branch (RELENG_9) must be created. Once the 9.x branch has been created, the main trunk needs to be renamed to distinguish it - hence 10-CURRENT. And note that 9.0 isn't STABLE, it is BETA3, on it's way to 9.0-RELEASE. Once 9.0-RELEASE has been released (or, possibly, shortly before), the 9.x branch will become STABLE. See http://www.freebsd.org/releases/9.0R/schedule.html for more details (though the dates are wrong). -- Peter Jeremy pgpce8Y83pxkV.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Instafix for FreeBSD ports brokenness on 10.0?
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 16:12:40 -0700
Stanislav Sedov s...@freebsd.org wrote:
So now tell me how
.if ${OSVERION} SOMETHING
do something
.endif
in bsd.port.mk
is more risky then that particular commit which can potentially break
devel/ for all OSVERSIONs.
+1.
I can't understand why I (and other HEAD users) should wait 9.0-RELEASE
or 'patch' bsd.port.mk after every ports tree update ?
Also, not so long time ago was commits with LICENSE= x11, Eitan, have
you tried to compile it BEFORE commit ? Why now I talking about
multiple exp-runs and risk?
--
wbr, tiger
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Instafix for FreeBSD ports brokenness on 10.0?
On 30 Sep 2011 00:14, Stanislav Sedov s...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 17:40:36 -0400
Eitan Adler li...@eitanadler.com mentioned:
The ports tree can be very fickle and touching a large class of ports
requires multiple exp-runs. Attempting these types of changes
just prior to release adds a degree of risk which no one wants to
accept.
Who don't want to accept this?
Who is making this decision for everyone?
Affecting *every single port* is not a negligible risk.
I can easily commit whatever I want to bsd.ruby.mk right now
affecting all the ports (and nobody will say a word), but we can't
do a conditional fix in bsd.port.mk? I'd say the first one poses
much a higher risk (and I never did a single exp-run for that).
Seriously, just look at the commits happening right now. Here's
one example (the most recent commit, not picking up anything):
15:22 CIA-28 [ports] glarkin * devel/Makefile: - Hook py-zope.interface
to the build
So now tell me how
.if ${OSVERION} SOMETHING
do something
.endif
in bsd.port.mk
is more risky then that particular commit which can potentially break
devel/ for all OSVERSIONs.
bsd.ruby.mk is only included for ports that ask for it- hardly the same.
Chris
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Instafix for FreeBSD ports brokenness on 10.0?
Hi, * Stanislav Sedov s...@freebsd.org, 20110929 22:43: I think this is a good idea. I recommend sending this to re@ and/or core@ for consideration. Personally, I'd love to see this committed ASAP, as I'm unable to do any ports work right now. I've poked portmgr@. :-) -- Ed Schouten e...@80386.nl WWW: http://80386.nl/ pgpsgq9JCe9nI.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Instafix for FreeBSD ports brokenness on 10.0?
On 30 Sep 2011 09:41, Ed Schouten e...@80386.nl wrote: Hi, * Stanislav Sedov s...@freebsd.org, 20110929 22:43: I think this is a good idea. I recommend sending this to re@ and/or core@ for consideration. Personally, I'd love to see this committed ASAP, as I'm unable to do any ports work right now. I've poked portmgr@. :-) But portmgr has already replied... Chris ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Instafix for FreeBSD ports brokenness on 10.0?
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 09:57:14AM +0100, Chris Rees wrote: On 30 Sep 2011 09:41, Ed Schouten e...@80386.nl wrote: Hi, * Stanislav Sedov s...@freebsd.org, 20110929 22:43: I think this is a good idea. I recommend sending this to re@ and/or core@ for consideration. Personally, I'd love to see this committed ASAP, as I'm unable to do any ports work right now. I've poked portmgr@. :-) But portmgr has already replied... Indeed and the answer hasn't changed. Ports on HEAD are only provided best effort, for regression testing etc, and users of HEAD are expected to be techincally savvy enough to work around potential problems themselves. Feel free to apply Ed's patch locally, but it won't make it into CVS. That said, this patch is the wrong place to fix a problem to autotools. It needs to be fixed in autotools, not bsd.port.mk. No matter if it's bsd.ports.mk or autotools, such a fix needs proper testing, for which we do not currently have the resources as we are concentrating on releasing 9.0. I would suggest you do the same and make 9.0 the best release possible during the next few weeks, after that we'll start looking into 10.0. Erwin -- Erwin Lansing http://droso.org Prediction is very difficult especially about the futureer...@freebsd.org ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Instafix for FreeBSD ports brokenness on 10.0?
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 5:10 AM, Erwin Lansing er...@freebsd.org wrote: That said, this patch is the wrong place to fix a problem to autotools. It needs to be fixed in autotools, not bsd.port.mk. No matter if it's bsd.ports.mk or autotools, such a fix needs proper testing, for which we do not currently have the resources as we are concentrating on releasing 9.0. I would suggest you do the same and make 9.0 the best release possible during the next few weeks, after that we'll start looking into 10.0. I have to admit that my reaction is not so much Why won't you fix ports for 10.0 as Why was 9.0 dropped out of CURRENT and 10.0 introduced before 9.0 went STABLE? Jim ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Instafix for FreeBSD ports brokenness on 10.0?
On Friday 30 September 2011 13:10:20 Jim Trigg wrote: On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 5:10 AM, Erwin Lansing er...@freebsd.org wrote: That said, this patch is the wrong place to fix a problem to autotools. It needs to be fixed in autotools, not bsd.port.mk. No matter if it's bsd.ports.mk or autotools, such a fix needs proper testing, for which we do not currently have the resources as we are concentrating on releasing 9.0. I would suggest you do the same and make 9.0 the best release possible during the next few weeks, after that we'll start looking into 10.0. I have to admit that my reaction is not so much Why won't you fix ports for 10.0 as Why was 9.0 dropped out of CURRENT and 10.0 introduced before 9.0 went STABLE? Jim At this point 9.0 and 10.0 are virtually identical. I really doubt that there will be much development in -CURRENT till after 9.0 is released anyway. A couple of the temporary fixes worked for me, so I can still update if I need to. All in all this is minor compared to a few years ago when all development was done directly on the head branch. You never knew from day to day and sometimes by the hour if -CURRENT would even build let alone run. This is just a bump in the road by comparison. Beech -- --- Beech Rintoul - FreeBSD Developer - be...@freebsd.org /\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | FreeBSD Since 4.x \ / - NO HTML/RTF in e-mail | http://people.freebsd.org/~beech X - NO Word docs in e-mail | Skype: akbeech / \ - http://www.FreeBSD.org/releases/8.2R/announce.html --- ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Instafix for FreeBSD ports brokenness on 10.0?
* Ed Schouten e...@80386.nl, 20110929 10:47:
-exec sed -i 's/freebsd1\*)/SHOULDNOTMATCHANYTHING)/' {} +
Whoops. Don't forget to add '' after the -i.
--
Ed Schouten e...@80386.nl
WWW: http://80386.nl/
pgpeXx31sf2gD.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: Instafix for FreeBSD ports brokenness on 10.0?
On 29/09/2011 09:47, Ed Schouten wrote:
Hi folks,
Why can't we simply fix the entire ports tree at once by doing something
like this?
find ${WRKSRC} -type f \( -name config.libpath -o \
-name config.rpath -o -name configure -o -name libtool.m4 \) \
-exec sed -i 's/freebsd1\*)/SHOULDNOTMATCHANYTHING)/' {} +
Just to be safe, we can only execute this when OSVERSION is 10.0.
Because that's a change to the upstream distfiles downloaded from the
net. So this change would have to be implemented by adding patch files
to every port that needed it, or by adding a new make target in the
various Makefiles.
However, this is going to be a huge amount of churn and disruption in
the ports, and if you hadn't noticed, we're right in the middle of the
process of generating 9.0-RELEASE. Meaning that now is not the time to
implement widespread changes that will throw the ports tree into disarray.
So people that run -CURRENT -- people that, mind you, are expected to be
pretty competent Unix developers capable of dealing with the much worse
systemic problems that tend to pop up when running bleeding edge code --
those people are being asked to put up with ports brokenness for a few
weeks. Work-arounds have been published, and I'm sure there's quite a
lot of work going on behind the scenes to make the eventual fix pretty
seamless.
If that doesn't work for you, then try 9.0-BETA3 for a while. There's
virtually no difference to -CURRENT at the moment, and it doesn't tickle
this particular bug.
Cheers,
Matthew
--
Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 7 Priory Courtyard
Flat 3
PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate
JID: matt...@infracaninophile.co.uk Kent, CT11 9PW
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Instafix for FreeBSD ports brokenness on 10.0?
* Matthew Seaman m.sea...@infracaninophile.co.uk, 20110929 11:01: Because that's a change to the upstream distfiles downloaded from the net. So this change would have to be implemented by adding patch files to every port that needed it, or by adding a new make target in the various Makefiles. I meant simply adding this line to bsd.port.mk, to be executed after pre-configure and before configure. -- Ed Schouten e...@80386.nl WWW: http://80386.nl/ pgpBq7UqfhcJ4.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Instafix for FreeBSD ports brokenness on 10.0?
* Ed Schouten e...@80386.nl, 20110929 11:07:
I meant simply adding this line to bsd.port.mk, to be executed after
pre-configure and before configure.
More specifically, see the attached patch.
--
Ed Schouten e...@80386.nl
WWW: http://80386.nl/
--- Mk/bsd.port.mk
+++ Mk/bsd.port.mk
@@ -3667,6 +3667,16 @@
@${DO_NADA}
.endif
+# Work around an issue where FreeBSD 10.0 is detected as FreeBSD 1.x.
+run-autotools-fixup:
+.if ${OSVERSION} = 100
+ @find ${WRKSRC} -type f \( -name config.libpath -o \
+ -name config.rpath -o -name configure -o -name libtool.m4 \) \
+ -exec sed -i '' 's/freebsd1\*)/SHOULDNOTMATCHANYTHING)/' {} +
+.else
+ @${DO_NADA}
+.endif
+
# Configure
.if !target(do-configure)
@@ -4266,7 +4276,7 @@
_CONFIGURE_DEP= patch
_CONFIGURE_SEQ= build-depends lib-depends configure-message \
configure-autotools pre-configure pre-configure-script \
-run-autotools do-configure post-configure post-configure-script
+run-autotools run-autotools-fixup do-configure post-configure post-configure-script
_BUILD_DEP= configure
_BUILD_SEQ= build-message pre-build pre-build-script do-build \
post-build post-build-script
pgpU7Tmu2JJOq.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: Instafix for FreeBSD ports brokenness on 10.0?
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 10:47:25AM +0200, Ed Schouten wrote: Hi folks, Why can't we simply fix the entire ports tree at once by doing something like this? If we're not going to fiddle with auto* so close to a release date, we certainly are not going to fiddle with the whole ports infrastructure that affects even more ports, especially not for a workaround that only affects CURRENT users. Ports on CURRENT is only provided on a best effort basis and its users are expected to be techically savvy enough to work around these kinds of issues themselves. We can always use more eyes on 9.0-BETA3 and as HEAD hasn't diverged that much, it would be nice if people installed the beta and reported any bugs found there. Erwin -- Erwin Lansing http://droso.org Prediction is very difficult especially about the futureer...@freebsd.org ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Instafix for FreeBSD ports brokenness on 10.0?
* Xin LI delp...@gmail.com, 20110929 12:08: This is not sufficient since some places it's freebsd[123], freebsd[[123]], etc... Yes, but the patch I propose already fixes a large class of compilation issues. It is by no means a silver bullet. -- Ed Schouten e...@80386.nl WWW: http://80386.nl/ pgpnUhQiJ8vUz.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Instafix for FreeBSD ports brokenness on 10.0?
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 1:47 AM, Ed Schouten e...@80386.nl wrote:
Hi folks,
Why can't we simply fix the entire ports tree at once by doing something
like this?
find ${WRKSRC} -type f \( -name config.libpath -o \
-name config.rpath -o -name configure -o -name libtool.m4 \) \
-exec sed -i 's/freebsd1\*)/SHOULDNOTMATCHANYTHING)/' {} +
Just to be safe, we can only execute this when OSVERSION is 10.0.
This is not sufficient since some places it's freebsd[123],
freebsd[[123]], etc...
Cheers,
--
Xin LI delp...@delphij.net https://www.delphij.net/
FreeBSD - The Power to Serve! Live free or die
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Instafix for FreeBSD ports brokenness on 10.0?
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 11:18:59 +0200 Ed Schouten e...@80386.nl mentioned: * Ed Schouten e...@80386.nl, 20110929 11:07: I meant simply adding this line to bsd.port.mk, to be executed after pre-configure and before configure. More specifically, see the attached patch. I think this is a good idea. I recommend sending this to re@ and/or core@ for consideration. Personally, I'd love to see this committed ASAP, as I'm unable to do any ports work right now. -- Stanislav Sedov ST4096-RIPE () ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail /\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Instafix for FreeBSD ports brokenness on 10.0?
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 11:47:33 +0200 Erwin Lansing er...@freebsd.org mentioned: On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 10:47:25AM +0200, Ed Schouten wrote: Hi folks, Why can't we simply fix the entire ports tree at once by doing something like this? If we're not going to fiddle with auto* so close to a release date, we certainly are not going to fiddle with the whole ports infrastructure that affects even more ports, especially not for a workaround that only affects CURRENT users. Ports on CURRENT is only provided on a best effort basis and its users are expected to be techically savvy enough to work around these kinds of issues themselves. We can always use more eyes on 9.0-BETA3 and as HEAD hasn't diverged that much, it would be nice if people installed the beta and reported any bugs found there. The question is why we're not going to fiddle with auto* given other stuff which is being committed to the ports tree right now, which is unrelated to release as well? The fix can be added unconditionaly, thus having a very low (I'd say negligible) risk of breaking anything. In the meantime, if we don't fix this we're making it impossible for any HEAD users to do any kind of productive work in ports. -- Stanislav Sedov ST4096-RIPE () ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail /\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Instafix for FreeBSD ports brokenness on 10.0?
The ports tree can be very fickle and touching a large class of ports requires multiple exp-runs. Attempting these types of changes just prior to release adds a degree of risk which no one wants to accept. The question is why we're not going to fiddle with auto* given other stuff which is being committed to the ports tree right now, which is unrelated to release as well? Because these commits don't possibly break a large portion of ports. The fix can be added unconditionaly, thus having a very low (I'd say negligible) risk of breaking anything. Affecting *every single port* is not a negligible risk. In the meantime, if we don't fix this we're making it impossible for any HEAD users to do any kind of productive work in ports. We will fix it, once 9-RELEASE is out the door. In the meantime please see UPDATING 20110928. -- Eitan Adler ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Instafix for FreeBSD ports brokenness on 10.0?
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 17:40:36 -0400
Eitan Adler li...@eitanadler.com mentioned:
The ports tree can be very fickle and touching a large class of ports
requires multiple exp-runs. Attempting these types of changes
just prior to release adds a degree of risk which no one wants to accept.
Who don't want to accept this?
Who is making this decision for everyone?
Affecting *every single port* is not a negligible risk.
I can easily commit whatever I want to bsd.ruby.mk right now
affecting all the ports (and nobody will say a word), but we can't
do a conditional fix in bsd.port.mk? I'd say the first one poses
much a higher risk (and I never did a single exp-run for that).
Seriously, just look at the commits happening right now. Here's
one example (the most recent commit, not picking up anything):
15:22 CIA-28 [ports] glarkin * devel/Makefile: - Hook py-zope.interface to
the build
So now tell me how
.if ${OSVERION} SOMETHING
do something
.endif
in bsd.port.mk
is more risky then that particular commit which can potentially break
devel/ for all OSVERSIONs.
--
Stanislav Sedov
ST4096-RIPE
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
