Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 11:10:22 -0500 (EST) From: Mikhail Teterin <mi@aldan.algebra.com> To: roam@ringlet.net Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: ports/graphics/gd Makefile pkg-plist, Ukraine Message-ID: <200111021610.fA2GAPW86382@aldan.algebra.com> In-Reply-To: <20011102114451.A75362@straylight.oblivion.bg>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2 Nov, Peter Pentchev wrote:
> I could work on a test target in the next few days; in the meantime,
I tried -- it is not obvious :( The files are there, and the code is,
but, apparently, it was never used automated by the author(s). There is
no "run this to test" -- at all :-( And it might crash if you run a
wrong test on a wrong file, too (like requesting TrueColor pixels on a
non-TrueColor picture). Try it if you'd like -- would be good to have
it, IMO.
> attached is a patch that installs only the docs themselves, without
> the test files.
Looks right. But why does it have to shuffle the @dirrm include/gd line
around? :-)
>> --- ports/graphics/gd2/pkg-plist 14 Oct 2001 20:23:23 -0000 1.11
>> +++ ports/graphics/gd2/pkg-plist 1 Nov 2001 08:03:07 -0000
>> @@ -14,7 +14,22 @@
>> include/gd/gdfontmb.h
>> include/gd/gdfonts.h
>> include/gd/gdfontt.h
>> +@dirrm include/gd
>> lib/libgd.a
>> lib/libgd.so
>> lib/libgd.so.3.0
>> -@dirrm include/gd
>> Mmm, ok... BTW, may be, we should install the include files into
>> ${LOCALBASE}/include directly? All of the names starts with gd anyway
>> -- let's do that for the sake of hier(7) :-)
>
> Would this not break applications that expect to be able to include
> "gd/*.h"? I don't think it makes sense to introduce tons of patches to
> every such application under the sun, when it is perfectly acceptable
> IMHO for a library to differentiate its include files from the rest..
I think, we are currently patching them the other way :) Here is what
gd2's and gd's original Makefiles are saying:
#Location where .h files should be installed by "make install".
INSTALL_INCLUDE=/usr/include
Note, no /gd subdirectory... I don't know why FreeBSD chose to change
that... May be, gd wanted it that way before...
> BTW, is gd2's API incompatible with that of gd?
I think, it is. I know the patches in ukrainian/gd will need fixing to
work with it, due, it seems, to gratuitous white-space changes in gd2,
but IMHO, we should bite the bullet and upgrade graphics/gd up to what's
gd2 now. The reason I asked for repo-copy gd->gd2 in the first place was
because I was not sure about some of the patches and functionality
(kanji). But it seems to be fine now.
The next release is nowhere near in sight, let's do that and fix what
breaks. Except, I'll be away for most of the November :) -- I leave on
Monday for Kyiv. (Committers in Ukraine -- can I bring anything useful?)
> If so, what do we do about PR ports/31699, which points out that some
> of those ports' files conflict in a bad way? :)
Merge them back into one and close it :)
-mi
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200111021610.fA2GAPW86382>