Re: Application of package options from within buildlink3.mk?

[Thomas Klausner <wiz%NetBSD.org@localhost>]

On Fri, Jun 20, 2025 at 10:51:14AM +0200, Havard Eidnes wrote:
> I recently had reason to upgrade my pkgsrc on one of my
> NetBSD/amd64 hosts running 9.3.
> 
> The libxml2 package needed updating, and it's apparently used
> ~everywhere, so this is a bit of a slog.
> 
> During this, I came to build multimedia/ffmpeg7, and configuring
> that failed because the setup refused to use gnutls; said it was
> "not found", ref.:
> 
> => Checking for portability problems in extracted files
> ERROR: gnutls not found using pkg-config
> 
> Debugging this with ktrace (that should not really be necessary,
> now, should it?) gets me closer to the reason:
> 
>   2359      1 pkg-config GIO   fd 2 wrote 53 bytes
>        "Package 'p11-kit-1', required by 'gnutls', not found\n"
> 
> Now, gnutls's buildlink3.mk has this section:
> 
> pkgbase := gnutls
> .include "../../mk/pkg-build-options.mk"
> # ...
> .if ${PKG_BUILD_OPTIONS.gnutls:Mpkcs11}
> .include "../../security/p11-kit/buildlink3.mk"
> .endif
> 
> However, if I in multimedia/ffmpeg7 do
> 
>   make show-var VARNAME=PKG_BUILD_OPTIONS.gnutls
> 
> it comes up empty, i.e. just outputs a newline.
> 
> I had mrg@ do the same in his slightly older pkgsrc, and it came
> up with "pkcs11".
> 
> I tend to stick to defaults as much as possible, and as far as I
> can see I have not messed with anything which should impact this.
> I can be wrong, of course...

This is caused by a change that made p11-kit support optional in
gnutls. When such an option is added, the ABI version in the
buildlink3.mk must be bumped (and a recursive PKGREVISION bump is
needed) because the old package that had p11-kit enabled by default,
does not have the p11-kit option listed in its options, so the include
will not happen.

This option change was on 15 May 2024, and the recursive bump was on
16 May 2024 (i.e. last year). So I'm not sure why you stumble over
this now - are your packages really that old?

I didn't analyze your second problem because it looks very similar to
your first one.
 Thomas