On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 08:02:38PM +0200, olli hauer wrote:
> On 2013-06-13 19:50, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 06:58:16PM +0200, olli hauer wrote:
> >> On 2013-06-13 15:07, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> Here is a patch to fix LIB_DEPENDS.
> >>>
> >>> First what is/are the problem of LIB_DEPENDS.
> >>>
> >>> LIB_DEPENDS relies on of ldconfig -r to get its valid or not installed
> >>> shared
> >>> libraries, problem is:
> >>> liba-5.2.so and liba-5.so.2 will both be a-5.2 for ldconfig -r, which is
> >>> not
> >>> really what we want.
> >>>
> >>> secondly ldconfig -r is only able to print something for libraries in the
> >>> form
> >>> of: lib<name>.so[.number], while we have no technical limitation to
> >>> enforce this
> >>> form and it is more and more common to find libraries in the following
> >>> form:
> >>> lib<name>.so.major.minor.patch and to get them working properly right
> >>> know we
> >>> have to patch the upstream build system, to send some magic tricks on
> >>> libtool
> >>> etc, all that kind of things all of us loves to deal with.
> >>>
> >>> What I do propose is a new form of LIB_DEPENDS in addition to the current
> >>> one:
> >>> LIB_DEPENDS= bla.so[numberwithlongorwhatever]:${PORTSDIR}/cat/bla
> >>>
> >>> What the framework will do, is lookup in all libraries directories for
> >>> libbla.so[numberwithdotsorwhatever] test if it exists (test -f also
> >>> validate the
> >>> symlink is pointing to a regular file) if /usr/bin/file is present on your
> >>> system it will validate the pointed file is really a shared library.
> >>>
> >>> Any review welcome: http://people.freebsd.org/~bapt/fix-libdepends.patch
> >>>
> >>> This idea behind this patch is on mid/long term to remove the other
> >>> LIB_DEPENDS
> >>> forms.
> >>>
> >>> I do plan to commit this on next friday 2013-06-21.
> >>>
> >>> regards,
> >>> Bapt
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Hm,
> >>
> >> so this is a modern extended incarnation of the old LIB_DEPENDS notation
> >> For example pcre.3:... becomes pcre:...
> >>
> >> Isn't this something that can be handled with some additional code in
> >> pathfix?
> >>
> >> --
> >> regards,
> >> olli
> >>
> >
> > Either I m missing something, or I don't see the point about pathfix.
> >
> > It is not a matter of path, but rather allowing the ports tree to handle
> > properly all kind of library name, right now we have some false limitation
> > and
> > library name collision because we wrongly rely on ldconfig -r.
> >
> > we have lots of patches so convert library names to a format
> > libname.so.asinglenumber, just for the sake of a technical limitation of the
> > ports tree.
> >
> > That is what I m trying to fix.
> >
> > regards,
> > Bapt
> >
>
> Sorry, I was meaning USE_GNOME=ltverhack not gnomehack ...
>
> for example in www/neon we use it to change libneon.so.29 to libneon.so.27
>
> I haven't tested what is the result with a library that comes with so.x.x
> but maybe ltverhack works also there.
> That is exactly the kind of hacks I do want do eliminate. regards, Bapt
pgpQ516NdoMdb.pgp
Description: PGP signature
