Subject: Re: "binutils" under NetBSD
To: NetBSD Packages Technical Discussion List <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: OBATA Akio <email@example.com>
Date: 08/15/2007 23:50:38
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 23:16:53 +0900, Johnny C. Lam <firstname.lastname@example.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
>> 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.
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 / email@example.com