Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Fixing EAPI 8 --enable-static once and for all

2022-11-19 Thread Mike Gilbert
On Sat, Nov 19, 2022 at 3:33 AM Ulrich Mueller  wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 19 Nov 2022, David Seifert wrote:
>
> > With this extensive analysis, I believe this patch to be safe.
>
> Still looks like an incompatible change, so it will need an EAPI bump.
>
> EAPI 9 feature bug is here: https://bugs.gentoo.org/815169

I support this patch to fix Portage, regardless of what PMS says.
Coding to the spec doesn't make sense if the spec is broken.



Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Fixing EAPI 8 --enable-static once and for all

2022-11-19 Thread Michał Górny
On Sat, 2022-11-19 at 09:33 +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > > > > > On Sat, 19 Nov 2022, David Seifert wrote:
> 
> > With this extensive analysis, I believe this patch to be safe.
> 
> Still looks like an incompatible change, so it will need an EAPI bump.
> 
> EAPI 9 feature bug is here: https://bugs.gentoo.org/815169

I dare say we've done worse retroactive changes.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny




Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Fixing EAPI 8 --enable-static once and for all

2022-11-19 Thread Ulrich Mueller
> On Sat, 19 Nov 2022, David Seifert wrote:

> With this extensive analysis, I believe this patch to be safe.

Still looks like an incompatible change, so it will need an EAPI bump.

EAPI 9 feature bug is here: https://bugs.gentoo.org/815169


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


[gentoo-portage-dev] Fixing EAPI 8 --enable-static once and for all

2022-11-18 Thread David Seifert
Attached a patch to finally fix https://bugs.gentoo.org/814380.

When I opened the bug, it was clear that I intended to only disable
static libtool archive building. Unfortunately, I hadn't done the
necessary due diligence, and it turns out how we detect the
"--enable-static" flag is overly broad and leads to a sizable number of
false positives in EAPI 8.

I have 937 EAPI 8 packages on my machine, and in 0 cases does my patch
now produce static libraries where none were produced before, while it
successfully reduces the annoying QA warnings on packages that don't use
libtool or use the flag for different purposes:

1. packages that have an "off-target"/false-positive flag triggering
   the current logic:

  dev-libs/nspr-4.35
--enable-static-rtl Use the MSVC static runtime library
  sys-fs/lvm2-2.03.16
--enable-static_linkuse this to link the tools to their libraries

2. packages with a real --{dis,en}able-static flag, but with semantics
   that don't actually disable building of static-libs:

  dev-util/strace-5.19
--enable-static link strace statically
  sys-process/htop-3.2.1
--enable-static build a static htop binary [default=no]
  media-video/mkvtoolnix-71.1.0
--enable-static make a static build of the applications (no)
--enable-static-qt  link to static versions of the Qt library (no)

dev-util/strace has a $(use_enable static) option, and the other two are
default disabled. Hence in all of these cases, the patch does not change
the build output.

3. packages with a --{dis,en}able-static flag that controls building of
   static libraries, but with a slightly different --help output that
   doesn't trigger the updated glob anymore:

  dev-libs/icu-72.1
--enable-static build static libraries default=no
  dev-libs/nettle-3.8.1
--disable-staticDo not build any static library
  net-print/cups-2.4.2
--enable-static install static libraries

All of these packages pass a $(use_enable static-libs static) option,
hence none of them would be affected by the missing --disable-static.

With this extensive analysis, I believe this patch to be safe.