Re: Why did devel/bison grow a dependency on xz?

[Aleksej Saushev <asau%inbox.ru@localhost>]

is%netbsd.org@localhost writes:

> On Sun, Oct 07, 2012 at 08:35:54PM -0500, Eric Schnoebelen wrote:
>> 
>> I'm curious why devel/bison grew a dependency on archivers/xz?
>> 
>> The dependency is an implicit one, based on setting EXTRACT_SUFX
>> to .tar.xz.  
>> 
>> I guess the question is, why was it essential to create the
>> dependency when bison is still also being made available as a
>> "traditional" .tar.gz?
>> 
>> I encountered this while trying to bring a(n admittedly antique)
>> SS20 running NetBSD 2.1 up to date using pkgsrc-2012Q3.  The
>> poor little beast spent a couple of days trying to build
>> gcc-3.4, so it could build xz, which then failed to build. And
>> building xz was effectively pointless, as the bison sources were
>> available as .tar.gz.
>> 
>> Objections to reverting devel/bison to using the more
>> "traditional" .tar.gz tarball?
>
> Well, you buy less dependency with more airtime (well, ether time).
> Still, I wouldn't object as an editor is one of the basic tools
> that you need early when configuring a new system...
>
> But I wonder how difficult it to would be to support a multitude of
> EXTRACT_SUFXes, being chosen by a preference in mk.conf or maybe by 
> extraction tools already being installed in the build environment.

It isn't trivial due to multiple explicit references to 
$(DISTNAME)$(EXTRACT_SUFX).


-- 
HE CE3OH...