Subject: Re: "binutils" under NetBSD
To: Roland Illig <rillig@NetBSD.org>
From: Johnny C. Lam <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 08/15/2007 10:16:53
Roland Illig wrote:
> Matthias Scheler wrote:
>> The result of this change is that every package including
>> "pkgsrc/devel/binutils/buildlink3.mk" (e.g. "pkgsrc/multimedia/mplayer")
>> no requires the "binutils" package from "pkgsrc". This was not necessary
>> before and the "mplayer" package could be build without problems that
> But the pkgsrc package provides the libraries and headers. Shouldn't a
> built-in package provide the same things as a pkgsrc one?
> How is a "good enough" system-provided package defined? There's nothing
> in the pkgsrc guide about this topic. :(
This is the fault of stuff not really catching up with new changes in
pkgsrc. Most packages include binutils/buildlink3.mk because they want
the binaries. If I were doing it now, I would have added them to the
tools framework so that we could say USE_TOOLS+=... instead. I believe
that technically, your builtin.mk changes are correct, even though they
are causing problems right now.
I don't have time at the moment to look at moving binutils/buildlink3.mk
logic into the tools framework, but I'll put it high on my TODO list.
-- Johnny Lam <email@example.com>