[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: CVS commit: pkgsrc/net/gssdp
John Marino <netbsd%marino.st@localhost> writes:
> On 12/4/2016 16:13, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
>> On Sun, Dec 04, 2016 at 04:12:03PM -0600, John Marino wrote:
>>> On 12/4/2016 16:04, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
>>>> On Sun, Dec 04, 2016 at 09:56:30PM +0000, John Marino wrote:
>>>>> Module Name: pkgsrc
>>>>> Committed By: marino
>>>>> Date: Sun Dec 4 21:56:30 UTC 2016
>>>>> Modified Files:
>>>>> pkgsrc/net/gssdp: Makefile
>>>>> Log Message:
>>>>> net/gssdp: Specify readline and ncurses requirements
>>>>> /usr/libexec/binutils225/elf/ld.gold: error: cannot find -lreadline
>>>>> /usr/libexec/binutils225/elf/ld.gold: error: cannot find -lncurses
>>>> Please revert this and the earlier changes. Nothing in this package or
>>>> e.g. security/pam-krb5 uses readline directly. At most it gets pulled in
>>>> directly from somewhere and should be fixed there and only there.
>>> # ldd ./libgssdp-1.0.so
>> Yes, please read again what I wrote. One of the dependencies pulls in
>> readline, but doesn't for whatever reason have it in its buildlink3.mk.
>> That is the problem that should be fixed.
> So you can fix that. Once you've identified exactly what it is, then
> tell me and I'll verify those recently changed ports still build when
> readlink buildlink is removed. It makes no sense to intentionally
> break ports until then. Being linked to products == used DIRECTLY
I'm having a bit of trouble following. Joerg's point that only packages
that actually link against readline should have a bl3 line seems
correct. And, for packages that don't intend to have readline, if they
do link against it without it being present, that seems like a bug that
should be fixed (perhaps with --disable-readline). Also, a change of
this magnitude seems like it should be proposed/discussed; at least in
this case there are differing technical opinions.
Are you saying that you have added readline as a bl3 dependency to
packages where you have not verified that the package actually directly
links against readline?
(not speaking as pmc, and this is not yet a request.) Overall, it seems
like it might be better to revert and to see if the group can find a
solution with less collateral damage.
Main Index |
Thread Index |