tech-pkg archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: NetBSD 5 package status

"OBATA Akio" <> writes:

> On Wed, 04 Jun 2014 21:47:35 +0900, Greg Troxel <> 
> wrote:

>> x11/gtk3                                 406 
> Builtin X11 is too old for gtk3.

>> devel/boost-libs                         325 
> Builtin GCC is too old?

(Thanks John also for the confirming comments.)

So it seems like we have two separate problems.

1) netbsd-5 x11 is crufty

  Builtin x11 on netbsd-5 is too old for a number of things,   We don't
  really have enough cycles to keep this working; until I raised the
  issue about freetype2 last time it had been broken a long time.

  Not really germane to pkgsrc, but if NetBSD 7 had been released we
  would ignore netbsd-5.  NetBSD 5 was released over 5 years ago.

> Should we allow partial packages with builtin X11, or should we set
> required version (BUILDLINK_API_DEPENDS) consistently for whole
> pkgsrc tree?

  My guess is that mixing builtin x11 and xorg is tricky and in general
  can't really work.  At best each module has to be flipped to xorg
  globally for pkgsrc if any package needs it, which is what I think you
  are suggesting.

  Switching netbsd-5 to modular is a low-churn approach for all
  platforms except netbsd-5.  Like John, I use modular on netbsd-5, and
  things work pretty well.

  Trying to fix pkgsrc so that things will build on nebtsd-5/native has
  a risk of destabilitzing pkgsrc on other platforms, and we're about to
  enter the Q2 freeze.  With Q1, there were a lot of problems with
  freetype2, but I realize that was partly a security fix being needed
  at an inopportune time.  I would really like to avoid this happening

  I don't see much downside to swtiching netbsd-5 to modular.  The real
  question is what choice better serves a pkgsrc user on netbsd-5.  So I
  think we should switch, and I don't really want to put effort (myself)
  into making netbsd-5/native work.

2) boost-libs needs newer gcc

  So we should set GCC_REQD for boost-libs, or perhaps force higher gcc
  for everything (which seems like overkill)..

  Possibly, programs that include boost-libs need higher gcc too,
  because of the complexity in .h files.  Perhaps we can put that in the

  This situation worries me less, because someone with a netbsd-5 system
  can experiment with the compiler issues and build things more easily
  than flipping to modular, which invalidates using most binary packages
  and requires a big rebuild.

Attachment: pgpb5Rx_Lp231.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index