Re: librsvg

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

Thomas Klausner <wiz%NetBSD.org@localhost> writes:

> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 10:32:10AM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote:
>> Yes, and as others have said make an option so that people who want to
>> avoid rust can.  Perhaps librsvg-c as a new package and make librsvg be
>> the rust version.
>
> So here's a suggested diff. It leaves out the copying of librsvg to
> librsvg-c (as-is, without its bl3.mk file though).
>
> In particular, the new buildlink3.mk switches the default based on a
> variable that can be set in mk.conf, and defaults to "yes" if rust is
> supported.

That seems ok, except that I would not expect "if NetBSD then rust is
supported" to be true.  So I'd expect further conditionals on
architecture, and to err on the side of not including something as rust
if it's not known to work.

This could be hoisted later, but perhaps "is rust supported" belongs in
lang/rust/foo.mk.  But I don't think we should conflate that with your change.

dholland's comments about the usual versioned package conventions makes
sense, and then we'd have librsvg240 and librsvg244.  But this is
different; it's a singular break rather than a continuing pattern of
incompatibility, and upstream doesn't see an issue.  So that leads me to
prefer librsvg-c and librsvg, since librsvg will get updated to new
versions.