Re: CVS commit: pkgsrc/security/gnupg21

[Ryo ONODERA <ryo_on%yk.rim.or.jp@localhost>]

From: Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg%britannica.bec.de@localhost>, Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 12:44:22 +0200

> On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 07:22:47PM +0900, Ryo ONODERA wrote:
>> From: Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg%britannica.bec.de@localhost>, Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 11:47:52 +0200
>> 
>> > On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 06:30:47PM +0900, Ryo ONODERA wrote:
>> >> Hi,
>> >> 
>> >> From: Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg%britannica.bec.de@localhost>, Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 11:09:41 +0200
>> >> 
>> >> > On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 09:11:42AM +0900, Ryo ONODERA wrote:
>> >> >> I would like to commit these and remove security/gnupg2/buildlink3.mk
>> >> >> after freeze.
>> >> >> Please send me your comments.
>> >> > 
>> >> > Wrong package name.
>> >> ???
>> > 
>> > It's still called gnupg, not gnupg2.
>> 
>> What is your 'it'?
>> security/gnupg2 and security/gnupg21 share 'gnupg2' ${PKGBASE},
>> because upstream says security/gnupg2 and security/gnupg21 cannot
>> coexists in a environment.
> 
> Sorry, mea culpa.

No problem.

>> >> > The question remains -- why point source builds to
>> >> > the 2.0.x version, when binary packages and bulk builds are picking up
>> >> > the higher 2.1.x version instead?
>> >> 
>> >> I have no idea about your bulk build environment.
>> >> In general, higher version/revision number is preferred in pkgsrc.
>> > 
>> > Yes, but for source builds you tell it to use gnupg2, not gnupg21.
>> 
>> You mean that behavior of security/gnupg2 and security/gnupg2 is
>> not in usual way?
> 
> Bulk builds and binary packages use the list of all packages and match
> against that. So if you have gnupg2-2.0.29.tgz and gnupg2-2.1.6nb2.tgz,
> both matching the pattern, the one with the higher version is picked.
> If you do a source build and don't have a matching package installed,
> gnupg2 would be used as specified. That's inconsistent.

O.K. I understand the problem.
For consistency,
DEPENDS+=gnupg2>=2.0<2.1:../../security/gnupg2
should be used.

However security/gnupg2 and security/gnupg21 share same user interface.
And if someone want to use security/gnupg21 instead of security/gnupg2,
what we can do for the someone?

>> >> > As we don't have tool support for
>> >> > gnupg (and I don't see a good reason for wanting to have that), just use
>> >> > ${PREFIX} and not find-prefix.mk.
>> >> 
>> >> At the moment, find-prefix.mk has less meaning.
>> >> However using ${PREFIX} directly may became harmful in future.
>> > 
>> > For packages without builtin.mk support or custom sub-prefix, it is just
>> > a left-over of package wedges. As such, it just adds noise and build
>> > time.
>> 
>> I cannot judge whether it is just noise or not.
>> If it is really noise, please note it in the pkgsrc guide.
> 
> The pkgsrc guide doesn't take about find-prefix.mk.

Yes. It is problem.
If find-prefix.mk should/should not be used, the pkgsrc guide
has description about it.

Thank you.

--
Ryo ONODERA // ryo_on%yk.rim.or.jp@localhost
PGP fingerprint = 82A2 DC91 76E0 A10A 8ABB  FD1B F404 27FA C7D1 15F3