cvs commit: ports/print/acroread7 Makefile

[Trevor Johnson]

> >  Remove unneeded USE_LINUX=yes and USE_XLIB=yes, and an erroneous
> >  comment about the need to run brandelf, which were added by netchild.
>
> Acroread depends upon files which come with linux_base-X. USE_LINUX=yes adds
> a dependency to it (if you don't use the default linux base you have to set
> OVERRIDE_LINUX_BASE=foo in make.conf for this to work correctly). It also
> uses the X11 libs, so USE_XLIB (or USE_X_PREFIX, but see below) is needed,
> else the dependency list is not correct and people which install acroread as
> the only linux program don't get the X11 libs (for the default linux base).

The dependencies are there, as you will see if you install the port and
look at its /var/db/pkg/acroread7-7.0.1/+CONTENTS file.  The dependency on
linux-gtk2 brings in dependencies on linux_base and the Linux X libraries.

> For a non-default linux base this isn't needed since you decided to include
> the X11 libs into some linux_base-X ports, but the official linux base port
> has to be the reference. USE_LINUX=yes also changes some defaults e.g. STRIP
> and more.

The use of strip isn't something I had thought about at all.  To follow
the licence, we mustn't run strip.  I will check into whether it's being
run.

> So as a short description: please readd USE_LINUX and USE_XLIB (or
> USE_X_PREFIX, but see below), it's needed to make sure the linux
> infrastructure works as intended.
>
> The sad thing about this part is: it's not the first time I try to explain
> this to you. And as you can see from the commit logs (you removed USE_LINUX
> from a lot of ports without testing it on the ports build cluster a while
> ago and I readded it after testing it on the ports build cluster and a lot
> of "this is still broken" mails from portmgr) portmgr agrees with me that
> USE_LINUX is needed to get the dependencies right. So please tell us where I
> (or someone else) need to provide a better description of some parts of the
> explanation.
>
> Technically it isn't needed to run brandelf, but to be on the safe side we
> should use it. There are cases where you can shoot into your foot without a
> branded binary. I didn't encountered such an edge case myself, but I
> remember a case where an unbranded binary caused the system to reboot
> (because it triggered the wrong syscall). Feel free to start a discussion
> about the necessarity/deprecation of brandelf on -current if you think
> brandelf is useless.

Unfortunately, as hrs pointed out to me, the licence for this program
forbids us from changing its contents.  I don't think that brandelf is, in
general, useless, but fortunately it is not needed for this particular
port:

$ file
/usr/local/lib/acroread/usr/local/Adobe/Acrobat7.0/Reader/intellinux/bin/acroread
/usr/local/lib/acroread/usr/local/Adobe/Acrobat7.0/Reader/intellinux/bin/acroread:
ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (SYSV), for GNU/Linux
2.2.5, dynamically linked (uses shared libs), stripped

> So in short: please add the necessary brandelf part to have a port which not
> only works, but to have a port which may also play nice in edge cases.
>
> >  Also remove his comments about the prefix being wrong.  I am changing
> >  the prefix.  I think that rather than inserting such comments in a
> >  port, it is better to contact the maintainer.
>
> I did. Several times. Some of the mails where CCed to portmgr (since I don't
> want to stomp on someone elses feets; I want to see nice progress in the
> ports collection). Some of the replies where CCed to emulation at . So far I
> got zero answers from you to every mail I send to you this year. This is sad
> (for everyone except me), since I describe some fixes/improvements for some
> of your linux ports which other people don't get ATM.

The way it looks to me, you did contact me about several of these things,
but only after adding your comments to the port.  Perhaps I am wrong and I
overlooked an earlier e-mail from you.

> >  Install under LOCALBASE, rather than LINUXBASE, without registering
>
> I know there are several people which think LOCALBASE is the right one. The
> current default policy is to install ports which depend upon X11 into
> X11BASE. For those which want to object here, please go out and read the
> previous discussion about this topic, so far there's no resolution to this
> and portmgr thinks no side was able to provide enough points to come to a
> conclusion. The defacto standard ATM is to install such ports into X11BASE
> and acroread should comply IMHO.

According to hier(7), X11R6 is for the X11R6 distribution (bits from e.g.
x.org).   I know that many, many ports, including my own, don't comply
with this.

> As long as acroread (an application which an ordinary user wants to use)
> stays out of LINUXBASE (the place where the infrastructure for linux
> applications is installed) I don't moan about using LOCALBASE.
>
> So in short: thank you.
>
> While I have a look at the acroread7 port: there was a discussion on ports@ a
> while ago where most ports developers agreed that a port should come with a
> plist instead of generating the plist from scratch at install time.

I missed out on this discussion, but I usually like to avoid pkg-plist
files.  It is part of my personal style and it is technically sound.

> Exceptions are allowed of course, but they are limited to e.g. ports with
> complex options which change the plist in a non-trivial way. So please add a
> commit-time plist please. The linux-gtk port already has infrastructure to
> generate a rough plist from a rpm which just needs to be refined (e.g.
> removing man-pages and default directories) a little bit.

A few lines of script in one makefile, versus 8 pkg-plist files--more once
the slave ports submitted by chinsan have been added--each with around 300
lines?  I'll take the former, thanks.

> Another suggestion is to remove the kldstat check in do-build. I can't see a
> call to a linux binary at compile or install time (I haven't tested this,
> this is only based upon reading the Makefile, so feel free to prove me
> wrong). You only need it at run time of acroread7, but it is not the
> responsibility of each linux port to check for the linux support in the
> kernel (the linux base does this already, so it's another point for readding
> the USE_LINUX knob).

In theory that check should not be needed, but several users sent e-mails
indicating that they were having problems of this sort.  After joerg added
the check, the e-mails stopped.  I was thinking of removing the check, but
then I remembered those e-mails. :-)
-- 
Trevor Johnson