Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2002 01:20:02 -0800 (PST) From: mkm <mkm@idsi.net> To: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Re: ports/34565: graphics/blender port is broke Message-ID: <200202030920.g139K2567594@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
The following reply was made to PR ports/34565; it has been noted by GNATS. From: mkm <mkm@idsi.net> To: Will Andrews <will@csociety.org> Cc: FreeBSD GNATS DB <FreeBSD-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Re: ports/34565: graphics/blender port is broke Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2002 01:16:46 -0600 On Sunday 03 February 2002 02:10 am, Will Andrews wrote: > Mesa dependent on blender? I don't think so. No, as i said Mesa should be a dependent, not be dependent, which it is, I seemed to have overlooked pkg_info -r 8) > Hmm. It is actually in graphics/Mesa3, but only included if > XFree86 is 3.x. So your patch is still broken in this respect. > The Mesa port is broken too, but that's not addressed here. Re-read the message you replied to. > Because the package is built in a clean environment. If Mesa > installs a symlink in that location and you build the port, your > command as in the port would fail because the symlink already > exists. And then your blender plist would be broken because it's > also claiming to own that symlink. > So packages that require X libs are built according to XFree86 3.x? Hrmm, I see how that could get hairy. > No, it actually breaks it (more). If something doesn't do the > right thing, it is by definition broken. Breaks it less, now it actually runs. (given on a XFree86-4 box). I agree that its still broke, hence why I'm working on the Mesa3 changes. > Dirty /usr trees don't really cause problems in this case, since > the symlink wouldn't point to an actual file if the packages are > removed. Always better safe than sorry, scenario: some clown out there (there are many) writes code w/ a configure script to evaluate [ -e /blah/blah/libGL.so.14 ] or [ -h /blah/blah/libGL.so.14 ] to check for Mesa3, then someone ports it. kaboom. > > As I mentioned earlier, im looking into Mesa right now to see what can be > > done to fix this. Really the only issues I see with the patch is that it > > needs a PORTREVISION bump, a Mesa depend and the fact that Mesa is the > > port that should be patched not the blender port. I just submitted this > > patch because it does temporarily fix things until > > you/I/maintainer/whoever can come up with the proper solution. > > The port already depends on Mesa. The patch is wrong. It does > not really fix the problem. I had overlooked that depend and I am working on Mesa, see above, > By the way, I already had this long discussion with the author of > blender and the original blender port maintainer awhile back. > The short and long of it is that Mesa in ports needs to be fixed. Then blender should be marked as a broke port until it isnt broke according to your definition of broke. > Please don't suggest to "fix" blender like this. Someone else > already went down that road. I mearly offered it as a temporary fix. I don't do things half assed. Just give me a little time to work on it and all will be well. 8) -- Kyle Martin mkm@idsi.net 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?200202030920.g139K2567594>