Ports 104877 causing big problems

[Ade Lovett]

On Mar 09, 2007, at 15:14 , Doug Barton wrote:

> Ade Lovett wrote:
>> So, item (1): does the problem actually still exist with a port using
>> the in-tree devel/libtool15 (via USE_AUTOTOOLS= libtool:15[:env].  If
>> yes, empirical evidence will be required as an addendum to the  
>> PR.  If
>> no, then we're done.
>
> So it sounds like a reasonable way to proceed would be for Kent to
> save a copy of his current libgpg-error +REQUIRED_BY file, then run
> one of the commands that mezz suggested, and compare the before and
> after pictures. If the problem is fixed, they should be substantially
> different.

Correct.  This is the empirical evidence that needs to be determined  
and logged within the PR itself.

Should it turn out that recent changes have not fixed the problem  
then, and only then, do we look at the appropriate solution.  This  
would most likely be along the lines of an additional stanza to the  
USE_AUTOTOOLS construct rather than overloading GNU_CONFIGURE since:

1. There are most likely a number of ports that define GNU_CONFIGURE  
but which do NOT make use of libtool

2. When it comes to ports-wide operations (such as building indexes)  
we need to ensure that addition Mk/* infra-structural code is only  
brought in when needed.  There is a non-zero cost to processing each  
Mk/bsd.*.mk file, so it is important to only bring these files in  
when absolutely necessary.

3. Ports that *are* affected by this issue (assuming the issue still  
exists) can be fixed in a more relaxed manner (eg: a conversion of  
GNU_CONFIGURE=YES to USE_AUTOTOOLS=configurehack [implying  
GNU_CONFIGURE=YES]) than a time-T switch.  It will also allow for  
such affected ports to have PORTREVISIONs bumped by the respective  
maintainers so as to more clearly identify improved operation to the  
consumers of those ports.

-aDe