On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 01:20:24PM -0500, attila wrote:
> Hello tech@,
>
> On the 6 Aug snap I ran into this issue:
>
> $ pkg_info | grep libevent
> libevent-2.0.22 event notification library
> $ pkg-config --atleast-version=2.0.1 libevent && echo yes
> Argument "22-stabl" isn't numeric in numeric eq (==) at /usr/bin/pkg-config
> line 662.
> yes
>
> So it works but spits out that error. The issue is that the libevent
> port reports its version as 2.0.22-stable, which does not follow the
> convention used by the compare() sub in pkg-config. The attached
> patch gets rid of the error albeit in a very pointilistic way; perhaps
> a more general solution is desired, but I'm not sure what the best
> approach is, especially given that there is something called
> pkg-config available pretty much everywhere but based on very
> different implementations...
>
> It doesn't appear as though my patch introduces any regressions,
> although I'm still sussing out how the regression tests work so I'm
> not sure if I'm doing anything wrong... it appears that five of
> pkg-config's regression tests fail regardless of my patch:
>
> FAIL usr.bin/pkg-config/static-cflags2
> FAIL usr.bin/pkg-config/static-libs2
> FAIL usr.bin/pkg-config/static-libs3
> FAIL usr.bin/pkg-config/static-libs4
> FAIL usr.bin/pkg-config/missing-req-2
>
> In all cases it looks like the difference is ordering, except for the
> last where two errors are produced but only one is expected. I'll
> work on a patch to fix these failures next.
That's indeed the case and patches to fix that are welcome.
> Feedback, comments most welcome.
Could you please add regress tests for this issue you're solving too?
> Pax, -A
> --
> http://trac.haqistan.net | [email protected] | 0xE6CC1EDB
>
> Index: pkg-config
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.bin/pkg-config/pkg-config,v
> retrieving revision 1.85
> diff -u -p -r1.85 pkg-config
> --- pkg-config 17 Nov 2014 22:16:23 -0000 1.85
> +++ pkg-config 11 Aug 2015 17:53:24 -0000
> @@ -625,16 +625,16 @@ sub compare
> # is there a valid non-numeric suffix to deal with later?
> # accepted are (in order): a(lpha) < b(eta) < rc < ' '.
> # suffix[0] is the 'alpha' part, suffix[1] is the '1' part in 'alpha1'.
> - if ($a =~ s/(rc|beta|b|alpha|a)(\d+)$//) {
> - say_debug("valid suffix $1$2 found in $a$1$2.");
> - $suffix_a[0] = $1;
> - $suffix_a[1] = $2;
> + if ($a =~ s/(|-)(stable|rc|beta|b|alpha|a)(|\d+)$//) {
> + say_debug("valid suffix $2$3 found in $a$2$3.");
> + $suffix_a[0] = $2;
> + $suffix_a[1] = $3;
> }
>
> - if ($b =~ s/(rc|beta|b|alpha|a)(\d+)$//) {
> - say_debug("valid suffix $1$2 found in $b$1$2.");
> - $suffix_b[0] = $1;
> - $suffix_b[1] = $2;
> + if ($b =~ s/(|-)(stable|rc|beta|b|alpha|a)(|\d+)$//) {
> + say_debug("valid suffix $2$3 found in $b$2$3.");
> + $suffix_b[0] = $2;
> + $suffix_b[1] = $3;
> }
>
> # The above are standard suffixes; deal with single alphabetical
--
jasper
