Re: CVS commit: pkgsrc/x11/fltk13

[Michael Bäuerle <micha%NetBSD.org@localhost>]

Dr. Thomas Orgis wrote:
> Am Wed, 26 May 2021 10:44:54 +0200 schrieb Michael Bäuerle <micha%NetBSD.org@localhost>:
> > 
> [...]
> Anyhow:
>  
> > Proposed lines to add for the ${OPSYS} != "Darwin" sections:
> > | 
> > | .include "../../fonts/fontconfig/buildlink3.mk"
> > | .include "../../x11/libX11/buildlink3.mk"
> > | .include "../../x11/libXrender/buildlink3.mk"  
> 
> OK ? looking what fltk configure links directly ?
> 
> conf.log:checking for X11/extensions/Xfixes.h... yes
> conf.log:checking for XFixesQueryExtension in -lXfixes... yes
> conf.log:       Graphics: X11 + Xft + Xdbe + Xfixes + Xinerama + Xcursor + Xrender
> 
> ltk-config:LDLIBS="-lXrender -lXcursor -lXfixes -lXext -lXft -lfontconfig -lXinerama -lpthread -ldl -lm  -lX11 "
> 
> We then cover Xrender, Xcursor, Xext, Xft, fontconfig, Xinerama, X11 ?
> missing Xfixes. I see -lXfixes in libXcursor.la, libxcb-xfixes.la. But
> since it is mentioned explicitly in the build, should we add that, too?

Yes, I overlooked libXfixes:
| 
| $ nm /usr/pkg/lib/libfltk.so | grep XFixes
|                  U XFixesQueryExtension
|                  U XFixesSelectSelectionInput

> Also:
> 
> checking for xprop... /usr/bin/xprop
> 
> I wonder if that is needed in the build. Should it be a tool
> dependency? Maybe its path is built into some binary or config?

Looks like it should be either a tool dependency (if used) or
patched out completely.

> Looking into configure.ac:
> 
>        AC_CACHE_CHECK(for X overlay visuals, ac_cv_have_overlay,
>             if test "x$XPROP" != x; then
>                 if $XPROP -root 2>/dev/null | grep -c "SERVER_OVERLAY_VISUALS" >/dev/null; then
>                     ac_cv_have_overlay=yes
>                 else
>                     ac_cv_have_overlay=no
>                 fi
>             else
>                 ac_cv_have_overlay=no
>             fi)
> 
>         if test x$ac_cv_have_overlay = xyes; then
>             AC_DEFINE(HAVE_OVERLAY)
>         fi
> 
> It's checking a property of the currently running server(?). That's ugly.
> 
> What do we do with that? I'd expect the build to be reproducible
> independently of being called in an X11 terminal or plain console (or
> no interactive terminal at all).

I tend to not remove this check (and add the tool dependency), because
nobody has complained in the past.

Maybe someone else with deeper X11 knowledge can give a better advice.


[Refreshed the subscription, now the CC should reach the list]

-- 
Regards,
Michael