Re: WANTLIB is unmaintainable (was: Re: update: shells/zsh 5.4.2)
On 2017/12/05 12:16, Marc Espie wrote: > Apart from the fact that automatic generation won't work and break package > updates completely, what do you suggest ?... > > Seriously. This is not a simple problem > Another way it /could/ be done is FreeBSD-style bumping dependent ports when a dependency change forces an update. But (even speaking as one of the people doing periodic WANTLIB syncs) I'm honestly happier with WANTLIB than I am with that. Many of these chagnes would be easier to handle if portbump's WANTLIB functions worked a bit better.
Re: WANTLIB is unmaintainable (was: Re: update: shells/zsh 5.4.2)
Apart from the fact that automatic generation won't work and break package updates completely, what do you suggest ?... Seriously. This is not a simple problem
Re: WANTLIB is unmaintainable (was: Re: update: shells/zsh 5.4.2)
On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 03:06:45PM +, Christian Weisgerber wrote: > Stuart Henderson: > > > > Looks like WANTLIB needs an update, curses instead of ncursesw. Could > > > you please check that nothing went wrong in the configure step > > > > This changed because of src/share/mk/bsd.lib.mk r1.92, we should probably > > update it across all the ports tree otherwise the next time somebody does a > > bulk WANTLIB sync, they're going to have a whole bunch of fun with that :) > > WANTLIB is unmaintainable. > > The curses thing is cosmetic, but every time some popular library > changes its dependencies, the WANTLIB entries in hundreds of ports > are outdated. This happens all the time, so WANTLIB is permanently > out of sync throughout the tree. > > What exactly prevents @wantlib from being automatically generated > by pkg_create? > > Currently we build the port, run lib-port-depends-check, and edit > the WANTLIB variable in the Makefile to match the output. That's > already semi-automated. (Alas, the Makefile format doesn't lend > itself to automated editing. I'm beginning to understand why some > people use XML for such things.) > > I understand that some ports have, exceptionally, for various > reasons, additional WANTLIB entries that aren't provided by > lib-port-depends-check. That's what WANTLIB could be used for. > > It's time to face it: The manual maintenance of WANTLIB simply > doesn't work. I can't agree more. -- Antoine
Re: WANTLIB is unmaintainable (was: Re: update: shells/zsh 5.4.2)
On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 04:06:45PM +0100, Christian Weisgerber wrote: > Stuart Henderson: > > > > Looks like WANTLIB needs an update, curses instead of ncursesw. Could > > > you please check that nothing went wrong in the configure step > > > > This changed because of src/share/mk/bsd.lib.mk r1.92, we should probably > > update it across all the ports tree otherwise the next time somebody does a > > bulk WANTLIB sync, they're going to have a whole bunch of fun with that :) > > WANTLIB is unmaintainable. > > The curses thing is cosmetic, but every time some popular library > changes its dependencies, the WANTLIB entries in hundreds of ports > are outdated. This happens all the time, so WANTLIB is permanently > out of sync throughout the tree. > > What exactly prevents @wantlib from being automatically generated > by pkg_create? > > Currently we build the port, run lib-port-depends-check, and edit > the WANTLIB variable in the Makefile to match the output. That's > already semi-automated. (Alas, the Makefile format doesn't lend > itself to automated editing. I'm beginning to understand why some > people use XML for such things.) > > I understand that some ports have, exceptionally, for various > reasons, additional WANTLIB entries that aren't provided by > lib-port-depends-check. That's what WANTLIB could be used for. > > It's time to face it: The manual maintenance of WANTLIB simply > doesn't work. Having wantlib lagging slightly behind is not a huge problem. Doing it automatically is not possible right now. Everything will break. mainly because packages with different wantlibs are not comparable, so you can't know which one is the newest. Adding wantlibs is not a big issue. Removing wantlibs is. A bump would be needed. At least.
WANTLIB is unmaintainable (was: Re: update: shells/zsh 5.4.2)
Stuart Henderson: > > Looks like WANTLIB needs an update, curses instead of ncursesw. Could > > you please check that nothing went wrong in the configure step > > This changed because of src/share/mk/bsd.lib.mk r1.92, we should probably > update it across all the ports tree otherwise the next time somebody does a > bulk WANTLIB sync, they're going to have a whole bunch of fun with that :) WANTLIB is unmaintainable. The curses thing is cosmetic, but every time some popular library changes its dependencies, the WANTLIB entries in hundreds of ports are outdated. This happens all the time, so WANTLIB is permanently out of sync throughout the tree. What exactly prevents @wantlib from being automatically generated by pkg_create? Currently we build the port, run lib-port-depends-check, and edit the WANTLIB variable in the Makefile to match the output. That's already semi-automated. (Alas, the Makefile format doesn't lend itself to automated editing. I'm beginning to understand why some people use XML for such things.) I understand that some ports have, exceptionally, for various reasons, additional WANTLIB entries that aren't provided by lib-port-depends-check. That's what WANTLIB could be used for. It's time to face it: The manual maintenance of WANTLIB simply doesn't work. -- Christian "naddy" Weisgerber na...@mips.inka.de
