Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 11:56:03 -0500 From: Jeremy Messenger <mezz.freebsd@gmail.com> To: "John W. O'Brien" <john@saltant.com> Cc: gnome@freebsd.org, FreeBSD Ports Mailing List <ports@freebsd.org>, Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: ports/175276: [patch] devel/py-gobject OPTIONSFILE eval order problem Message-ID: <CADLFttfdNxgbEnQ-wdm=FgtaEELm8UjbpX8%2B=owGWn7PnaXqZA@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <201302231730.r1NHU1LE053503@freefall.freebsd.org> References: <201302231730.r1NHU1LE053503@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Sorry, this is way too long to read. I will just skip the read and
post my suggest of solution to this problem in the top of your email.
I think the OPTIONS needs to change from ${UNIQUENAME} to
${PKGORIGIN:S/\//_/}. It will be looked like
"${PORT_DBDIR}/cat_port/options". Here's example:
In bsd.options.mk:
-----------------------------------
[...]
OPTIONSFILE?= ${PORT_DBDIR}/${PKGORIGIN:S/\//_/}/options
-----------------------------------
Then add compatible in somewhere like this:
-----------------------------------
.if exist (${PORT_DBDIR}/${UNIQUENAME}/options)
@${MV} ${PORT_DBDIR}/${UNIQUENAME} ${PORT_DBDIR}/${PKGORIGIN:S/\//_/}
.endif
-----------------------------------
Then teach the portmaster about if the port has been moved to the
different category or renamed (by read MOVED) then change the
${PORT_DBDIR}/${PKGORIGIN:S/\//_/}.
What do anyone think of my suggest solution? I haven't test anything
at all, which it's just what I have in my mind right now.
On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 11:30 AM, John W. O'Brien <john@saltant.com> wrote:
> The following reply was made to PR ports/175276; it has been noted by GNATS.
>
> From: "John W. O'Brien" <john@saltant.com>
> To: bug-followup@FreeBSD.org, jhein@symmetricom.com
> Cc: freebsd-python@freebsd.org
> Subject: Re: ports/175276: [patch] devel/py-gobject OPTIONSFILE eval order
> problem
> Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2013 12:23:35 -0500
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> 1. Should this be assigned to freebsd-python@?
>
> I realize that freebsd-gnome@ is the maintainer, but the root cause
> lies with the way Python ports use PKGNAMEPREFIX, and this is not the
> only affected port.
>
>
> 2. Allow me to elaborate on the originator's description, for those
> interested in the analysis.
>
> The common use of
>
> PKGNAMEPREFIX=${PYTHON_PKGNAMEPREFIX}
>
> depends on lazy evaluation, because the right-hand side is not defined
> until the "pre" section of bsd.python.mk. Relatively early on in
> bsd.port.mk, we get a default definition for UNIQUENAME based on
> PKGNAMEPREFIX, unless LATEST_LINK is already defined, which doesn't
> ordinarily happen until the "post" section of bsd.port.mk. Shortly
> after that, between the "options" section and the "pre" section of
> bsd.port.mk, we include bsd.options.mk which provides a default
> definition of OPTIONSFILE, based on UNIQUENAME. At that point in
> bsd.options.mk, we haven't yet included bsd.python.mk, so
> PYTHON_PKGNAMEPREFIX is undefined. That means that when make reads the
> saved options (inside the first pass through bsd.options.mk) thereby
> triggering evaluation of OPTIONSFILE, it is as if we hadn't set
> PKGNAMEPREFIX at all.
>
> As the originator points out, the do-config target, where make
> performs the work of writing saved options, re-evaluates OPTIONSFILE
> after bsd.python.mk sets PYTHON_PKGNAMEPREFIX, because do-config is
> defined in the "post" section of bsd.port.mk.
>
>
> 3. What ports are affected?
>
> Any port that sets PKGNAMEPREFIX equal to a make variable that is not
> defined until the "pre" section or later, and fails to work-around the
> staggered evaluation by defining one of UNIQUENAME, LATEST_LINK, or
> OPTIONSFILE, is broken. It turns out that Python ports are
> disproportionately affected, but mainly because Python ports are heavy
> users of PKGNAMEPREFIX. The other PKGNAMEPREFIXs are:
>
> % egrep "^[A-Z_]+_PKGNAMEPREFIX" /usr/ports/Mk/* -h
> APACHE_PKGNAMEPREFIX= ap${APACHE_VERSION}-
> PYTHON_PKGNAMEPREFIX?= py*-
> LUA_PKGNAMEPREFIX?= lua${LUA_VER_STR}-
> PYTHON_PKGNAMEPREFIX= py${PYTHON_SUFFIX}-
> RUBY_PKGNAMEPREFIX?= ruby${RUBY_SUFFIX}-
>
> But the distribution among these is heavily skewed toward Python.
>
> % find /usr/ports -depth 3 -type f -name Makefile \
> | xargs egrep "^OPTIONS_DEFINE" -l \
> | xargs egrep "^(OPTIONSFILE|UNIQUENAME|LATEST_LINK)" -L \
> | xargs egrep '^PKGNAMEPREFIX=.*\$' -h \
> | sed -e "s/[ ]//g" \
> | sort | uniq -c | sort -n
> 1 PKGNAMEPREFIX=${APACHE_PKGNAMEPREFIX}
> 1 PKGNAMEPREFIX=${DMPKGNAMEPREFIX}
> 1 PKGNAMEPREFIX=${DN3DPKGNAMEPREFIX}
> 1 PKGNAMEPREFIX=${TGTARCH}-${TGTABI}-
> 1 PKGNAMEPREFIX=php${PHP_VER}-
> 2 PKGNAMEPREFIX=${LANG_PKGNAME}-
> 22 PKGNAMEPREFIX=${PYTHON_PKGNAMEPREFIX}
>
> (That's supposed to be a tab and a space in the sed command, by the way.)
>
> So, let's focus on the 22 ports at the end.
>
> % find /usr/ports -depth 3 -type f -name Makefile \
> | xargs egrep "^OPTIONS_DEFINE" -l \
> | xargs egrep "^(OPTIONSFILE|UNIQUENAME|LATEST_LINK)" -L \
> | xargs egrep '^PKGNAMEPREFIX=.*PYTHON' -l \
> | cut -d/ -f4-5 | sort
> astro/py-RO
> audio/py-karaoke
> audio/py-pyaudio
> databases/py-sqlkit
> devel/py-bison
> devel/py-gobject
> devel/py-hgsubversion
> dns/ldns
> graphics/py-PyX
> graphics/py-gdal
> mail/py-spf
> math/py-sympy
> net/py-medusa
> security/arm
> security/py-volatility
> security/py-yara-editor
> www/py-django_compressor
> www/py-imdbpy
> www/py-qp
> www/py-qpy
> www/py-rhodecode
> www/py-satchmo
>
> I've checked every one of these by running
>
> make config-conditional
>
> twice in a row, and every one of them gave me a dialog the second
> time, which implies that they are reading and writing saved options in
> different places.
>
>
> 4. How can we fix this?
>
> As I see it, there are at least the following alternatives.
>
> A) Require each maintainer to choose and implement their preferred
> work-around, defining one or more of UNIQUENAME, LATEST_LINK, or
> OPTIONSFILE. This is what most affected ports do already, and what the
> originator is proposing for this port. 100 ports use
> PYTHON_PKGNAMEPREFIX and OPTIONS_DEFINE. 74 of those set OPTIONSFILE,
> 3 set LATEST_LINK, and 1 sets UNIQUENAME.
>
> In this case we should update the documentation in bsd.python.mk and
> the Porter's Handbook to make the requirement clear, and consider
> implementing a validation check somewhere in /usr/ports/Mk and/or
> portlint.
>
> B) Cause part or all of the "pre" section of bsd.python.mk to be
> processed earlier in bsd.port.mk, so that PYTHON_PKGNAMEPREFIX is
> defined by the time we hit bsd.options.mk and need OPTIONSFILE for
> reading. This would require additional analysis and testing to prevent
> collateral breakage, and it would mean that bsd.python.mk becomes a
> special case.
>
> I've skimmed the portion of bsd.python.mk prior to the definition of
> PYTHON_PKGNAMEPREFIX, and nothing major jumps out. If there is
> interest, I would be glad to prepare a patch at which to throw darts.
>
> C) Redefine OPTIONSFILE inside bsd.python.mk upon detecting that it
> changes after defining PYTHON_PKGNAMEPREFIX, so that OPTIONSFILE is
> the same when reading and writing saved options. I think we could do
> this without affecting bsd.port.mk, or the ports that have already
> implemented a workaround. It would mean that the default behavior when
> using PYTHON_PKGNAMEPREFIX is to put saved options in
> ${PORT_DBDIR}/${_PNP}${PORTNAME}/options, where _PNP is any literal
> used along with PYTHON_PKGNAMEPREFIX in the port's Makefile, which
> some might consider a POLA violation. On the other hand, doing one
> thing consistently that works is better than doing something that
> breaks your port unexpectedly.
>
> The big problem with this alternative is that PORTNAME by itself is
> nowhere near unique enough to avoid conflict with other ports, and
> would pretty much require bubbling up the definition of
> PYTHON_PKGNAMEPREFIX from bsd.python.mk to each affected port.
>
>
> 5. What is the best alternative?
>
> I find B very attractive because it frees maintainers from defining an
> extra variable if they don't want (i.e. good defaults), but still
> allows them to do so if they do want (i.e. good mechanism). It may be
> difficult, hackish, and error-prone though.
>
> Option A would be easiest, and least traumatic both to individual
> ports and to the ports infrastructure itself. For this reason alone, A
> is probably the right choice for now.
>
> Sadly, C may be a complete non-starter due to the uniqueness problem,
> but I wouldn't rule it out completely as a long-term follow-up to A.
> The way I see it working out is in three phases. Phase one is to
> implement option A but also invite maintainers to replace
>
> PKGNAMEPREFIX= ${PYTHON_PKGNAMEPREFIX}
>
> with
>
> PKGNAMEPREFIX= py${PYTHON_SUFFIX}-
>
> Phase two is to implement option C. Phase three is to invite
> maintainers to remove the option A work-around if they like the
> then-default behavior.
>
>
> 6. Conclusion.
>
> I invite commentary and criticism, especially on the potential
> resolutions I proposed. When we reach consensus, I will set about
> preparing some patches, if need be, and seeking the help of a friendly
> committer.
>
> Thank you for your kind indulgence.
>
> Cheers,
> John
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/
>
> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRKPsXAAoJEEdKvTwaez9w6yEIALFz+xrYLMdR1AhcPE2jEBd6
> uR4dOZye8PQFTHbvhA/t20NFTroalr2kXF49+PTqR6kCFes+vNgjIlWUdKsIngYk
> y5x32f60Bd/TtqPo6M2aeOE/M322U6cIH5jJhh3EBTEpm+Upd9enIetxR0NpjTnP
> G+6yf8e7P4oBaYGSk01i3pah00OR2YeC87rtcEdgs1sM94PjxbXZGcuA+K9UbgVQ
> 2WB8Z4IvrD3d2UqRnC8TRq1/bZyiPSHKNeMFBRJZ4gFe/wr9G0txDnH1LTy/q0Gq
> kVHvdbApLYytMX/VmMMgDRnbzGS/kDMvIED8dJnwWf9pMLmzsi0pcVX/vH0m1Vw=
> =q6eG
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-gnome@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-gnome
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-gnome-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
--
mezz.freebsd@gmail.com - mezz@FreeBSD.org
FreeBSD GNOME Team
http://www.FreeBSD.org/gnome/ - gnome@FreeBSD.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CADLFttfdNxgbEnQ-wdm=FgtaEELm8UjbpX8%2B=owGWn7PnaXqZA>