coypu%sdf.org@localhost writes:
> for how pkgsrc hides lookup paths, we need USE_X11 to make xorg paths
> visible. we've added a case to make this error if xorg is not installed
> at all, but this reached basic packages.
> this is familiar in the case of trying to build python w/o xorg. it
> errors and asks you to adjust your pkg options.
python has an x11 option. It seems ok that this requires x11 to build.
So I suspsect I am missing something and not understanding you.
> mostly a question: is shielding users who think pkgsrc should build
> xorg for them without setting X11_TYPE=modular more important than
> annoying non-graphical users?
pkgsrc should expect to rely on native if X11_TYPE=native. It should
not be building modular from pkgsrc in general.
As I see it, there are four approaches for netbsd/pkgsrc (well, more,
but):
- install base X11, and leave X11_TYPE=native
- don't install base X11 (or do anyway) and X11_TYPE=modular
- don't install base, don't set X11_TYPE, and do not try to build
anything that uses X
- don't install base, don't set X11_TYPE, and put "-x11" in the default
global options
Which one are you doing, and what's wrong?
What happens if you build python with the x11 option and no x11 libs
visible? Does it just not find that at configure, and does that break
the PLIST?
> ok to commit?
I don't think this is right, at least so far.
> Index: bsd.pkg.mk
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /cvsroot/pkgsrc/mk/bsd.pkg.mk,v
> retrieving revision 1.2031
> diff -u -r1.2031 bsd.pkg.mk
> --- bsd.pkg.mk 28 May 2018 20:37:47 -0000 1.2031
> +++ bsd.pkg.mk 16 Jul 2018 09:08:43 -0000
> @@ -477,9 +477,6 @@
> PKG_SKIP_REASON+= "${PKGNAME} is restricted:" \
> " "${RESTRICTED:Q}
> . endif
> -. if defined(USE_X11) && (${X11_TYPE} == "native") && !exists(${X11BASE})
> -PKG_FAIL_REASON+= "${PKGNAME} uses X11, but ${X11BASE} not found"
> -. endif
So that says if a package says it needs X11, and X11 is supposed to come
from base, and it isn't actually there, to error. That sounds like the
right thing.
Can you be more specific about what you are doing and what you expect to
have happen?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature