Frederic Fauberteau <triaxx%NetBSD.org@localhost> writes:
> Greg Troxel wrote:
>> Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg%bec.de@localhost> writes:
>>> On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 06:21:22PM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote:
>>>> Frederic Fauberteau <triaxx%NetBSD.org@localhost> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> .if empty(MACHINE_PLATFORM:MNetBSD-[0-5].*)
>>>>> X11_TYPE?= native
>>>>> +. if !empty(X11_TYPE:Mnative) && !exists(/etc/mtree/set.xbase)
>>>>> +PKG_FAIL_REASON+= "Native X11 distribution cannot be used if xbase set has not been installed. You should set X11_TYPE=modular or install xbase set."
>>>>> +. endif
>>>>> .endif
>>>>
>>>> I'm not really a fan, but I can't really argue against this.
>>>
>>> I'm not really in favor of this either. Especially since the feature
>>> test is looking for something completely unrelated to what anything
>>> cares about.
>>
>> Good point; I realized that and didn't say it becuase checking for 100
>> .h and 10 .so is not something we want to do in platform.mk
>>
>>
>> Maybe, x11-links should at build time actually check for all the stuff
>> it wants to symlink to (if it doesn't) and fail, and I think everything X
>> depends on x11-links anyway.
>
> I totally agree that testing of tens or hundreds of files is not
> reasonable. The problem I was trying to address was the tools that
> depend on xbase set in their native version. In any case, to link a
> tool from work/.tools/bin to ${X11BASE}/bin will result in a
> configure/build/installation error if ${X11BASE} doesn't exist. I
> would like to be directly notified that it is a misconfiguration
> instead of greping for minutes... The test I would like to put in
> mk/tools/replace.mk would be:
So this is only about tools that try to use things in base, and is not
about building packaging that use X?
Can you list the tools that do this?
> --- pkgsrc/mk/tools/replace.mk 6 Oct 2020 17:36:50 -0000 1.291
> +++ pkgsrc/mk/tools/replace.mk 15 Jul 2021 09:44:15 -0000
> @@ -1355,6 +1355,16 @@
> . endif
> .endfor
>
> +###
> +### For each tool that depends on X11 for its native version, make
> +### sure it is really installed (i.e. xbase has been installed).
> +###
> +.for _t_ in ${_USE_TOOLS}
> +. if !empty(TOOLS_PATH.${_t_}:M${X11BASE}*) && !exists(${TOOLS_PATH.${_t_}})
> +PKG_FAIL_REASON+= "X11_TYPE=native but xbase set is not installed. Either set X11_TYPE to modular or install xbase."
> +. endif
> +.endfor
> +
> ######################################################################
>
> # Create a TOOLS_ENV variable that holds a shell environment that
>
> If you disagree with this approach, I could close the PR with message "Issue not relevant for pkgsrc".
I am not sure what I really think yet, but:
It's somewhat or more, perhaps entirely, reasonable for pkgsrc to
assume that an xbase set file implies that the sets are present.
If one sets X11_TYPE to modular, do the tools that you listed depend
on the pkgsrc versions in a clean manner? (Surely this must be true.)
Files that are evaluated for every package should strive to be lean
So if the only problem is that some tools are taken from native X if
X11_TYPE=native (and work fine with modular), then a single if for the
set config file in tools seems preferable to looping over all tools and
checking, as a tradeoff of avoiding runtime at the expense of assuming
consistency.
Which I think brings me back to your original suggestion, which is to
just check for the set file in platform.mk
I would really like to hear what other people think; this is not an easy
issue to deal with.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature