Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2012 14:04:19 -0700 From: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> To: "Jason E. Hale" <bsdkaffee@gmail.com> Cc: Scot Hetzel <swhetzel@gmail.com>, Jeremy Messenger <mezz.freebsd@gmail.com>, ruby@freebsd.org, Edwin Groothuis <edwin@mavetju.org>, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org, gnome@freebsd.org, johans@freebsd.org Subject: Re: How to remove erroneous deps from pkgng Message-ID: <500B1953.10809@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <2193820.CL19acAFmS@mocha.verizon.net> References: <D0056D18EAAD41119F26D0715FA52FB6@Rivendell> <15617903.FBMimp13fy@mocha.verizon.net> <CACdU%2Bf97xFgcdAA8UqAOZDk-kHsA2Y0qLDEr38r-MsPt6a-aOw@mail.gmail.com> <2193820.CL19acAFmS@mocha.verizon.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 07/21/2012 13:48, Jason E. Hale wrote:
> IMO I don't really see what the hurry is. This has been the behavior for
> years.
Yes, and some of us have been annoyed by it for years as well. :)
The current behavior is wrong, and becomes increasingly painful in a
world where most FreeBSD users are using packages because it drags in a
totally pointless package to essentially every FreeBSD system. Fixing
this bug is a good thing, and needs to be done sooner rather than later.
I read your message as containing some degree of concern that if we fix
this particular problem the simple way now that it will reduce the
motivation to bring in your patch later. I assure you that's not the
case. The idea you have is a good one, and once it's a bit more fleshed
out I can't imagine that it would be rejected. If my reading of this is
wrong, my apologies.
> I think we can wait until there is a framework in place so we are not
> doing double work. I agree it should be done, but why go through all this
> again in a week or a month?
But as Scot pointed out, this is not double work. Things that need
build-deps for pkg-config need to have them added, no matter how it's
done. In fact, if you read my previous message carefully you would see
that by adding USE_GNOME= pkgconfig now, after making it a run-only dep,
nothing has to change immediately when your patch is added because your
patch will contain the proper support for making sure that pkgconfig
stays run-only. Then down the road if people want to change pkgconfig to
pkgconfig:run to be more clear, they can. But they won't have to.
> There are a few ports that need pkg-config to properly configure, but will
> build anyways without it. Just doing an exp-run isn't going to neccessarily
> test for those (graphics/kipi-plugins-kde4 is a good example although in that
> case there may be some file leftovers to give it away). Certain non-default
> options may use pkg-config to check a dependency as well and a default build
> wouldn't tell us if those options worked or not.
For all the ports you know of now that fall into the category of "need
pkg-config as a build dep but do not have it set" please submit a PR,
today. Even if you just list the names of the ports. That would be a big
help.
> I see what you're saying. I was originally thinking that it would still
> remain as USE_GNOME=pkgconfig, meaning pkg-config is a build and run
> dependency and we could opt-in to either :build or :run later.
pkg-config should never be a run dep. As I pointed out in my previous
message, your patch should contain knowledge about what features cannot
be which kind of dep. It should use this knowledge to default to the
right type if unspecified, and error out if it is specified wrong.
> My main concern is with ports like graphics/kipi-plugins-kde4 where the
> failure isn't going to be as obvious. I think a good alternative is to detect
> the ports that currently have and indirect dependency on pkg-config whether
> needed or not and add USE_GNOME=pkgconfig (if we are just going to remove the
> line from bsd.gnome.mk) to them for now.
For the ones you are already aware of, please submit a PR. For the
others, how do you propose to do the detection?
Doug
--
Change is hard.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?500B1953.10809>