X11BASE still in use in ports

[Doug Barton]

On 06/24/2012 11:05, Eitan Adler wrote:
> On 24 June 2012 03:46, Doug Barton <dougb at freebsd.org> wrote:
>> I noticed a failure in one of my ports today while doing an upgrade, and
>> was embarrassed to find that it was due to my port still using X11BASE.
>> That led me to do a quick grep of the tree, which seems to indicate that
>> there are a non-zero number of uses of it which seem to be erroneous:
> 
> When the patch was committed a exp-run was done.

Which isn't even close to being a thorough treatment. The *only* way to
do this kind of work is with grep through the entire tree. That should
have been done before the variable was removed.

> At the time any
> errors found were either fixed or worked around (by manually adding a
> X11BASE definition to the port's makefile).
> 
>> http://people.freebsd.org/~dougb/x11base-ports.txt
>>
>> Note, some of these are actually Ok, I haven't made an attempt to filter
>> them out yet.
>>
>> Is there any interest in cleaning these up? Should we restore the
>> definition of X11BASE until all of the ports that are using it are fixed?
> 
> I'd rather add it locally as a workaround to each port rather than add
> it globally.

I fixed all the ones in ak's list. I don't see the sense of adding
X11BASE= to the port rather than just fixing it properly, so I did the
latter.

FWIW, there seem to be 3 categories of problems in ak's list. First, the
variable isn't reached without an option being enabled (this is why
exp-runs are not sufficient). Second, the X11BASE was redundant, ala:

-I${LOCALBASE}/include -I${X11BASE}/include

Third, it was just plain broken.

A lot of the ports in the latter category were fonts, which may explain
some of the complaints we've received about font-cache not being run
properly.

Doug

-- 

    This .signature sanitized for your protection