Re: building asterisk and xmlstarlet

[Greg Troxel <gdt%lexort.com@localhost>]

jnemeth%CornerstoneService.ca@localhost (John Nemeth) writes:

> } > Does applying those changes to the asterisk19 package
> } > allow the build to proceed? If so, it might shed some light
> } > on what is going wrong.
>
>      asterisk19 went EOL two years ago, so I don't spend much time
> on it.

I guess then you will unset OWNER.  Perfectly fair to decide you don't
care, but being OWNER has a non-disclaimable duty of stewardship.

> } With the following diff (taken from your PR submission), asterisk19
> } builds with or without xmlstarlet installed, and seems to produce the
> } same bits.
>
>      If it ends up with the same bits, then it is likely that
> something wasteful is being done when xmlstarlet is installed.

Either that, or it's building the docs rather than using some included
version, which is consistent with pkgsrc doctrine of building vs being
pkgin.   So not necessarily a bad thing.

>      As for bashisms, I generally patch them out whenever possible.
> However, given that the package is EOL and ripe for removing, I'm
> inclined to accept quick hacks and move on.  For active packages,
> I would want to take a closer look.

Please do so.  I'll merge this patch to other versions that need it
after a week, and of course that can be undone if you patch out the
bashism.  (Personally I prefer to have a CONFIG_SHELL line in the
Makefile rather than a patch which needs merging.)

> } I think we should commit the diff below, and apply it to all the
> } versions.  That seems better than patches to turn off looking for xml to
> } avoid the bug, and more robust against future issues.
> } 
> } I don't see any comments from John in the PR (assigned 24 June), but
> } I'll give it another few days.

I've applied the patch to asterisk19.