On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 23:16:53 +0900, Johnny C. Lam <jlam@pkgsrc.org> wrote:

> 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
>>> way.
>>
>> 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.

FYI:
http://cvsweb.netbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/pkgsrc/graphics/mplayer/Attic/Makefile?rev=1.22&content-type=text/x-cvsweb-markup&hideattic=0

MPlayer included binutils/buildlink3.mk for platforms that have older builtin binutils,
maybe marked as "_INCOMPAT_BINUTILS" in binutils/builtin.mk.
Our tools framework doesn't support "required version", but NetBSD-1.5 is ancient version.

-- 
"Of course I love NetBSD":-)
OBATA Akio / obata@lins.jp