Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 21:21:07 +0100 From: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@FreeBSD.org> To: Pawel Pekala <pawel@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-pkg@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Automatic dependency adding in 1.2.x ? Message-ID: <20131210202107.GG99623@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> In-Reply-To: <20131210210839.7948f34e@FreeBSD.org> References: <20131210192543.4c854774@FreeBSD.org> <20131210191502.GF99623@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> <20131210210839.7948f34e@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--1XWsVB21DFCvn2e8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 09:08:39PM +0100, Pawel Pekala wrote: > Hi, >=20 > On 2013-12-10 20:15 +0100, Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@FreeBSD.org> wrote: > >That is desired and there is no way to disable this feature, this is > >done by introspecting the binaries to figure out the libraries they do > >need, DEBUG_LEVEL=3D1 should show you the dependencies automatically > >added. > > > >The point is then to totally disable the recursive dependencies we > >have now and in long term to not make any difference between lib > >dependencies and build dependencies. > > > >There is no magic behind that and that changes nothing for the > >developper, the dependencies are added because they are needed for > >example if glib brings icu and your program only uses glib the > >developper has no way to figure out that depending on glib option he > >may or may not add icu in the list of the dependencies. >=20 > I think you misunderstood me here, if dependency is pulled by direct > one recorded in Makefile that's ok and it should work that way. I'm > talking about other situation, with tinycdb today when I installed > www/cblog for testing purposes, it had already recorded > databases/tinycdb as dependency despite I didn't fixed BUILD, > LIB_DEPENDS - automatically and was not pulled in by any other deps for > sure. >=20 > What I wanted to (poorly) describe earlier - before 1.2.x update you > could ldd(1) all binaries in certain package and get list of needed > libraries to function. Then you could compare this list to what > recorded dependencies provide and missing libraries would point you to > not recorded, missing deps in the end. I wrote this script that done it: >=20 > https://github.com/ppekala/freebsd-ports-tools/blob/master/pkg-lib-check >=20 > It helped me to find some of those missing dependencies I'm trying to > whine about :) >=20 > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=3Dports/181764 > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=3Dports/182163 > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=3Dports/182166 and so on. >=20 > My point is - now this ability is gone and it sucks from developer > perspective, makes finding this type of bugs harder. Poudriere does it :) Another solution is: pkg query "%B" cblog It will show you all libraries required by cblog :) (including the one it provides if any) regards, Bapt --1XWsVB21DFCvn2e8 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.15 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAlKnd7MACgkQ8kTtMUmk6ExCswCfSiybXD008z0V/aJkr7lrMH9b xt8AoK04yNYvZarMALQyH2r2hzQFT/Q3 =w7Do -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --1XWsVB21DFCvn2e8--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20131210202107.GG99623>