[CFT] Fixing/changing LIB_DEPENDS

olli hauer ohauer at gmx.de
Thu Jun 13 18:02:47 UTC 2013


On 2013-06-13 19:50, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 06:58:16PM +0200, olli hauer wrote:
>> On 2013-06-13 15:07, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Here is a patch to fix LIB_DEPENDS.
>>>
>>> First what is/are the problem of LIB_DEPENDS.
>>>
>>> LIB_DEPENDS relies on of ldconfig -r to get its valid or not installed shared
>>> libraries, problem is:
>>> liba-5.2.so and liba-5.so.2 will both be a-5.2 for ldconfig -r, which is not
>>> really what we want.
>>>
>>> secondly ldconfig -r is only able to print something for libraries in the form
>>> of: lib<name>.so[.number], while we have no technical limitation to enforce this
>>> form and it is more and more common to find libraries in the following form:
>>> lib<name>.so.major.minor.patch and to get them working properly right know we
>>> have to patch the upstream build system, to send some magic tricks on libtool
>>> etc, all that kind of things all of us loves to deal with.
>>>
>>> What I do propose is a new form of LIB_DEPENDS in addition to the current one:
>>> LIB_DEPENDS=	bla.so[numberwithlongorwhatever]:${PORTSDIR}/cat/bla
>>>
>>> What the framework will do, is lookup in all libraries directories for
>>> libbla.so[numberwithdotsorwhatever] test if it exists (test -f also validate the
>>> symlink is pointing to a regular file) if /usr/bin/file is present on your
>>> system it will validate the pointed file is really a shared library.
>>>
>>> Any review welcome: http://people.freebsd.org/~bapt/fix-libdepends.patch
>>>
>>> This idea behind this patch is on mid/long term to remove the other LIB_DEPENDS
>>> forms.
>>>
>>> I do plan to commit this on next friday 2013-06-21.
>>>
>>> regards,
>>> Bapt
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Hm,
>>
>> so this is a modern extended incarnation of the old LIB_DEPENDS notation
>> For example pcre.3:... becomes pcre:...
>>
>> Isn't this something that can be handled with some additional code in pathfix?
>>
>> --
>> regards,
>> olli
>>
> 
> Either I m missing something, or I don't see the point about pathfix.
> 
> It is not a matter of path, but rather allowing the ports tree to handle
> properly all kind of library name, right now we have some false limitation and
> library name collision because we wrongly rely on ldconfig -r.
> 
> we have lots of patches so convert library names to a format
> libname.so.asinglenumber, just for the sake of a technical limitation of the
> ports tree.
> 
> That is what I m trying to fix.
> 
> regards,
> Bapt
> 

Sorry, I was meaning USE_GNOME=ltverhack not gnomehack ...

for example in www/neon we use it to change libneon.so.29 to libneon.so.27

I haven't tested what is the result with a library that comes with so.x.x
but maybe ltverhack works also there.


--

regards,
olli


More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list