Re: pkg/45559

[Hans Rosenfeld <rosenfeld%grumpf.hope-2000.org@localhost>]

The following reply was made to PR pkg/45559; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Hans Rosenfeld <rosenfeld%grumpf.hope-2000.org@localhost>
To: gnats-bugs%netbsd.org@localhost
Cc: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F6rn?= Clausen <joern.clausen%uni-bielefeld.de@localhost>
Subject: Re: pkg/45559
Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2011 17:47:12 +0100

 On Tue, Nov 08, 2011 at 05:24:26PM +0100, Jörn Clausen wrote:
 > On 11/08/11 03:55 PM, Hans Rosenfeld wrote:
 > >  >  >  - Define a single variable "USE_SFW" that can be set to "YES" or 
 > >  "NO".
 > >
 > >  How about defining TOOLS_PLATFORM.foo or TOOLS_IGNORE.foo if you
 > >  absolutely don't want certain native tools?
 > 
 > I do not want to avoid certain tools, I want to avoid /usr/swf all 
 > together. And as I don't want to skim tools.SunOS.mk on a regular basis 
 > and check for new replacements, such a global flag is one solution I can 
 > accept.
 
 Ok, adding such a flag might be useful, even if only to set by default
 on 5.8 and 5.9.
 
 Let's see what we have in there from sfw:
 
 ggrep:
   I think you always want that if you have it. I'm not aware of any way
   to specify that a grep with GNU extensions is required.  There are
   lots of packages that want to use grep -q or something like that, so
   if its there, use it.
 
 greadelf:
   I highly doubt that depending on devel/binutils really makes sense
   here. IIRC devel/binutils is quite outdated itself.
 
 makeinfo, install-info:
   mk/tools/texinfo.mk takes care of this already, packages can set
   TEXINFO_REQD to require a minimum version
 
 texi2html:
   I've seen problems with that when packages use arguments that the
   native texi2html doesn't know. That's usually easy to fix.
 
 gmake, flex, bison:
   I've just added mk/tools/gmake.mk and mk/tools/flex.mk to take care of
   the versions. I added GMAKE_REQD=3.81 to devel/gobject-instrospection
   and FLEX_REQD=2.5.33 to emulators/wine*. The same could be done for
   bison, if necessary. I'd really prefer to individually fix the few
   packages requiring this.
 
 gtar:
   I'm not sure about this. There are some things failing with 1.23 on
   5.10 because of broken distfiles (like, boost distfile using too large
   gid values). I'm still trying to figure out how to work around this in
   packages known to be affected. For everything else, I think using it
   causes no harm.
 
 
 So do you think I should exclude some of those tools from USE_SFW?
 
 Would you be willing to help sort out which packages need which special 
versions?
 
 
 > >  >  >  Personally, I don't see what is gained by using the tools from
 > >  >  >  /usr/sfw instead of building them from pkgsrc.
 > >
 > >  It is mostly useful to reduce dependencies, especially on packages
 > >  required for building with a pkgsrc gcc. Which, in turn, is really
 > >  useful to get comparable bulk builds across SunOS versions and
 > >  flavors.
 > 
 > Huh??? Instead of using the same tools from pkgsrc you suggest to use 
 > different tools from different SunOSes to get comparable results??? 
 
 Same pkgsrc compiler with the same set of dependencies -> comparable
 results. If gcc pulls in gmake, which pulls in gettext, which pulls in
 libtool-base, which then configures itself for some other compiler,
 some things break in interesting ways later.
 
 Although it does happen, it is quite uncommon that a package really
 requires a certain version of a tool. We should fix that individually.
 
 
 -- 
 %SYSTEM-F-ANARCHISM, The operating system has been overthrown