[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: NetBSD 5 package status
On Wed, 04 Jun 2014 21:47:35 +0900, Greg Troxel <gdt%ir.bbn.com@localhost>
Manuel's bulk reports for 2014Q1 show the following packages with lots
of consequences (plus math/blas on amd64):
x11/gtk3 406 pkgsrc-users%NetBSD.org@localhost
Builtin X11 is too old for gtk3.
Conversely, builtin X11 is sufficient unless using gtk3.
Unclear point is
* inputproto>=2.0 is required to build
* libXi is also required (no version specified, buitin one is sufficient)
* libXi require inputproto to build, and also in buildlink3.mk.
For such case, buitin libXi should be used or pkgsrc one?
(currently, pkgsrc one will be selected)
devel/boost-libs 325 pkgsrc-users%NetBSD.org@localhost
Builtin GCC is too old?
We can also find some packages that GCC_REQD is set higher than NetBSD 5
USE_PKGSRC_GCC should be set for NetBSD 5?
audio/pulseaudio 302 pkgsrc-users%NetBSD.org@localhost
x11 option is enabled by default, but it require x11-xcb,
but it is not in NetBSD 5 builtin X11.
Same as gtk3, libX11 from pkgsrc must be used, i.e. almost of
builtin X11 will not be used.
gtk3 and pulseaudio will be mixed used with other package depending on X11.
So if gtk3 and pulseaudio are built with libX11 from pkgsrc,
other package (gtk2, and so on) also must be built with libX11 from pkgsrc.
In desktop related packages (x11, gnome, and so on), we can find that
many BUILDLINK_API_DEPENDS are defined individually.
Should we bump BUILDLINK_API_DEPENDS.pkg defined in pkg/buildlink3.mk?
Is it realistic approach to still support pre-modular monolithic old X?
Should we allow partial packages with builtin X11, or should we set
required version (BUILDLINK_API_DEPENDS) consistently for whole
OBATA Akio / obata%lins.jp@localhost
Main Index |
Thread Index |