Re: Building of abiword 3.0 fails on 6.1.5/amd64

[Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-netbsd%yahoo.com@localhost>]

On 13 December 2014 at 15:32, Greg Troxel <gdt%ir.bbn.com@localhost> wrote:
>> I could reuse the existing makefile.common and enable plugins, and
>> remove all existing patches. It might probably build, but I am not
>> sure if the final product would be acceptable for pkgsrc standards.
>
> The patches are all there for a reason, or were, at least in theory.
> The normal thing is to go through them, and this is work.  Otherwise all
> the ones that are still needed are missing, and those issues will
> resurface.
>
> I find that the patch curation is often tedious, but they can be handled
> one at a time.  There really aren't that many, compared to truly scary
> packages.  A lot of them are fixing bashisms.  So I could see that job
> being doable in a few hours.  That will leave you with the new
> problems.


Yesterday I did a lot of "patch work" using pkgvi. I ended up with
many patches untouched (because there was no need for), anyway I got a
lot of *.orig files. When compiling abiword-3, I got a lot of messages
about ignoring the patch. If the patch is not necessary, is it not
better do delete it (or rename it)?


Another crucial question: when reusing an old makefile, isn't there a
risk to demand unnecessary dependencies, for example packages no
longer needed?

For example:

.include "../../converters/fribidi/buildlink3.mk"
.include "../../converters/libiconv/buildlink3.mk"
.include "../../converters/wv/buildlink3.mk"
.include "../../devel/libgsf/buildlink3.mk"
.include "../../devel/popt/buildlink3.mk"
.include "../../mk/readline.buildlink3.mk"
.include "../../mk/jpeg.buildlink3.mk"
.include "../../graphics/librsvg/buildlink3.mk"
.include "../../graphics/png/buildlink3.mk"
.include "../../x11/gtk2/buildlink3.mk"

How do I know if these are still needed?