Stuart Henderson <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2022/03/25 13:36, Lucas wrote: > > Lucas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hello ports, > > > > > > Here's a big release for Prosody! \o/ All the details can be found in > > > their post in https://blog.prosody.im/prosody-0.12.0-released/ as it > > > includes 3 years of development. Mayor things include incorporating > > > lots of stuff that was previously community modules. > > > > Bump! > > > > sthen@ gave an OK for net/luaunbound, we need another one. Also I still > > have doubts regarding the shared library generated by it, and wether I > > should define SHARED_LIBS or not in this case. > > Don't define SHARED_LIBS, it is an unversioned module for dlopen()
also: - don't override CFLAGS and LDFLAGS but append to them - i'm not 100% that WANTLIB is correct: lunbound.so uses symbols from libunbound from ports and libssl, libcrypto, libevent and libpthread from base. libunbound itself also requires all the other libs. is `WANTLIB += unbound' enough then? Will luaunbound be rebuilded after a, say, libcrypto bump? with these points fixed/addressed then it's ok op@ to import. (I wanted to move my prosody instance and test the update but life got in the way and i have to postpone that for a bit, would like to see this go in before 7.1 thought!) here's an example diff on top of your Makefile that address sthen@ comment and my first point: --- net/luaunbound/Makefile Thu Mar 17 18:01:10 2022 +++ luaunbound/Makefile Fri Mar 25 16:45:12 2022 @@ -1,9 +1,7 @@ -COMMENT = libunbound bindings for Lua +COMMENT = Lua bindings for libunbound DISTNAME = luaunbound-1.0.0 -SHARED_LIBS = lunbound 0.0 - CATEGORIES = net HOMEPAGE = https://www.zash.se/luaunbound.html @@ -31,8 +29,9 @@ NO_TEST = Yes -CFLAGS = -fPIC -I${LOCALBASE}/include -I${MODLUA_INCL_DIR} -LDFLAGS = -shared -L${LOCALBASE}/lib +CFLAGS += -fPIC -I${LOCALBASE}/include -I${MODLUA_INCL_DIR} +LDFLAGS += -shared -L${LOCALBASE}/lib + MAKE_FILE = GNUmakefile .include <bsd.port.mk>
