Re: lang/ruby200-base fails to build on NetBSD with DTrace

[Leonardo Taccari <leot%NetBSD.org@localhost>]

Hello Greg,

Greg Troxel writes:
> Is enough of dtrace always built with NetBSD for using dtrace to make
> sense (vs being an option)?  Generally, pkgsrc tries to avoid
> compile-time detection in favor of requiring features or hiding them
> (via bl3).
You're right, I think that a dtrace option (like lang/perl5) is better,
conditionally added to PKG_SUPPORTED_OPTIONS or PKG_SUGGESTED_OPTIONS
depending on ${OPSYS}.
According to the Makefile Linux does not support it and neither NetBSD.
It's would be great if someone can share her/his experience with Ruby
and DTrace in order to mark them as operating system that can enable
DTrace support for Ruby.

> But, we don't really have a good way to deal with things that are
> optional in the base system.  It seems with dtrace there are some MK
> variables to set in the build, rather than it being standard.
> 
> So I wonder if you are building on a stock netbsd-7 machine, or if
> you've enabled dtrace specifically.
Yes, I'm running NetBSD-current built with MKDTRACE=yes and MKCTF=yes in
order to fully enable DTrace.


Thank you for the quick response and suggestions!
Ciao,
L.