ports/175276: [patch] devel/py-gobject OPTIONSFILE eval order problem

Tue Mar 19 17:51:48 UTC 2013

On 19-3-2013 17:56, Jeremy Messenger wrote:
> Sorry, this is way too long to read. I will just skip the read and
> post my suggest of solution to this problem in the top of your email.
> I think the OPTIONS needs to change from ${UNIQUENAME} to
> ${PKGORIGIN:S/\//_/}. It will be looked like
> "${PORT_DBDIR}/cat_port/options". Here's example:
>
> In bsd.options.mk:
> -----------------------------------
> [...]
>
> OPTIONSFILE?=	${PORT_DBDIR}/${PKGORIGIN:S/\//_/}/options
> -----------------------------------
>
> Then add compatible in somewhere like this:
> -----------------------------------
> .if exist (${PORT_DBDIR}/${UNIQUENAME}/options)
> 	@${MV} ${PORT_DBDIR}/${UNIQUENAME} ${PORT_DBDIR}/${PKGORIGIN:S/\//_/}
> .endif
> -----------------------------------
>
> Then teach the portmaster about if the port has been moved to the
> different category or renamed (by read MOVED) then change the
> ${PORT_DBDIR}/${PKGORIGIN:S/\//_/}.
>
> What do anyone think of my suggest solution? I haven't test anything
> at all, which it's just what I have in my mind right now.

I was thinking of just axing the option completely and moving libffi to 
lib_depend. glib20 already depends on libffi, so we also could get away 
with removing it completely. But that doesn't resolve that this problem 
might appear in other ports.

-Koop

>
> On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 11:30 AM, John W. O'Brien <john at saltant.com> wrote:
>> The following reply was made to PR ports/175276; it has been noted by GNATS.
>>
>> From: "John W. O'Brien" <john at saltant.com>
>> To: bug-followup at FreeBSD.org, jhein at symmetricom.com
>> Cc: freebsd-python at freebsd.org
>> Subject: Re: ports/175276: [patch] devel/py-gobject OPTIONSFILE eval order
>>   problem
>> Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2013 12:23:35 -0500
>>
>>   -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>   Hash: SHA1
>>
>>   1. Should this be assigned to freebsd-python@?
>>
>>   I realize that freebsd-gnome@ is the maintainer, but the root cause
>>   lies with the way Python ports use PKGNAMEPREFIX, and this is not the
>>   only affected port.
>>
>>
>>   2. Allow me to elaborate on the originator's description, for those
>>   interested in the analysis.
>>
>>   The common use of
>>
>>   PKGNAMEPREFIX=${PYTHON_PKGNAMEPREFIX}
>>
>>   depends on lazy evaluation, because the right-hand side is not defined
>>   until the "pre" section of bsd.python.mk. Relatively early on in
>>   bsd.port.mk, we get a default definition for UNIQUENAME based on
>>   PKGNAMEPREFIX, unless LATEST_LINK is already defined, which doesn't
>>   ordinarily happen until the "post" section of bsd.port.mk. Shortly
>>   after that, between the "options" section and the "pre" section of
>>   bsd.port.mk, we include bsd.options.mk which provides a default
>>   definition of OPTIONSFILE, based on UNIQUENAME. At that point in
>>   bsd.options.mk, we haven't yet included bsd.python.mk, so
>>   PYTHON_PKGNAMEPREFIX is undefined. That means that when make reads the
>>   saved options (inside the first pass through bsd.options.mk) thereby
>>   triggering evaluation of OPTIONSFILE, it is as if we hadn't set
>>   PKGNAMEPREFIX at all.
>>
>>   As the originator points out, the do-config target, where make
>>   performs the work of writing saved options, re-evaluates OPTIONSFILE
>>   after bsd.python.mk sets PYTHON_PKGNAMEPREFIX, because do-config is
>>   defined in the "post" section of bsd.port.mk.
>>
>>
>>   3. What ports are affected?
>>
>>   Any port that sets PKGNAMEPREFIX equal to a make variable that is not
>>   defined until the "pre" section or later, and fails to work-around the
>>   staggered evaluation by defining one of UNIQUENAME, LATEST_LINK, or
>>   OPTIONSFILE, is broken. It turns out that Python ports are
>>   disproportionately affected, but mainly because Python ports are heavy
>>   users of PKGNAMEPREFIX. The other PKGNAMEPREFIXs are:
>>
>>   % egrep "^[A-Z_]+_PKGNAMEPREFIX" /usr/ports/Mk/* -h
>>   APACHE_PKGNAMEPREFIX=   ap${APACHE_VERSION}-
>>   PYTHON_PKGNAMEPREFIX?=  py*-
>>   LUA_PKGNAMEPREFIX?=             lua${LUA_VER_STR}-
>>   PYTHON_PKGNAMEPREFIX=   py${PYTHON_SUFFIX}-
>>   RUBY_PKGNAMEPREFIX?=    ruby${RUBY_SUFFIX}-
>>
>>   But the distribution among these is heavily skewed toward Python.
>>
>>   % find /usr/ports -depth 3 -type f -name Makefile \
>>       | xargs egrep "^OPTIONS_DEFINE" -l \
>>       | xargs egrep "^(OPTIONSFILE|UNIQUENAME|LATEST_LINK)" -L \
>>       | xargs egrep '^PKGNAMEPREFIX=.*\$' -h \
>>       | sed -e "s/[         ]//g" \
>>       | sort | uniq -c | sort -n
>>      1 PKGNAMEPREFIX=${APACHE_PKGNAMEPREFIX}
>>      1 PKGNAMEPREFIX=${DMPKGNAMEPREFIX}
>>      1 PKGNAMEPREFIX=${DN3DPKGNAMEPREFIX}
>>      1 PKGNAMEPREFIX=${TGTARCH}-${TGTABI}-
>>      1 PKGNAMEPREFIX=php${PHP_VER}-
>>      2 PKGNAMEPREFIX=${LANG_PKGNAME}-
>>     22 PKGNAMEPREFIX=${PYTHON_PKGNAMEPREFIX}
>>
>>   (That's supposed to be a tab and a space in the sed command, by the way.)
>>
>>   So, let's focus on the 22 ports at the end.
>>
>>   % find /usr/ports -depth 3 -type f -name Makefile \
>>       | xargs egrep "^OPTIONS_DEFINE" -l \
>>       | xargs egrep "^(OPTIONSFILE|UNIQUENAME|LATEST_LINK)" -L \
>>       | xargs egrep '^PKGNAMEPREFIX=.*PYTHON' -l \
>>       | cut -d/ -f4-5 | sort
>>   astro/py-RO
>>   audio/py-karaoke
>>   audio/py-pyaudio
>>   databases/py-sqlkit
>>   devel/py-bison
>>   devel/py-gobject
>>   devel/py-hgsubversion
>>   dns/ldns
>>   graphics/py-PyX
>>   graphics/py-gdal
>>   mail/py-spf
>>   math/py-sympy
>>   net/py-medusa
>>   security/arm
>>   security/py-volatility
>>   security/py-yara-editor
>>   www/py-django_compressor
>>   www/py-imdbpy
>>   www/py-qp
>>   www/py-qpy
>>   www/py-rhodecode
>>   www/py-satchmo
>>
>>   I've checked every one of these by running
>>
>>   make config-conditional
>>
>>   twice in a row, and every one of them gave me a dialog the second
>>   time, which implies that they are reading and writing saved options in
>>   different places.
>>
>>
>>   4. How can we fix this?
>>
>>   As I see it, there are at least the following alternatives.
>>
>>   A) Require each maintainer to choose and implement their preferred
>>   work-around, defining one or more of UNIQUENAME, LATEST_LINK, or
>>   OPTIONSFILE. This is what most affected ports do already, and what the
>>   originator is proposing for this port. 100 ports use
>>   PYTHON_PKGNAMEPREFIX and OPTIONS_DEFINE. 74 of those set OPTIONSFILE,
>>   3 set LATEST_LINK, and 1 sets UNIQUENAME.
>>
>>   In this case we should update the documentation in bsd.python.mk and
>>   the Porter's Handbook to make the requirement clear, and consider
>>   implementing a validation check somewhere in /usr/ports/Mk and/or
>>   portlint.
>>
>>   B) Cause part or all of the "pre" section of bsd.python.mk to be
>>   processed earlier in bsd.port.mk, so that PYTHON_PKGNAMEPREFIX is
>>   defined by the time we hit bsd.options.mk and need OPTIONSFILE for
>>   reading. This would require additional analysis and testing to prevent
>>   collateral breakage, and it would mean that bsd.python.mk becomes a
>>   special case.
>>
>>   I've skimmed the portion of bsd.python.mk prior to the definition of
>>   PYTHON_PKGNAMEPREFIX, and nothing major jumps out. If there is
>>   interest, I would be glad to prepare a patch at which to throw darts.
>>
>>   C) Redefine OPTIONSFILE inside bsd.python.mk upon detecting that it
>>   changes after defining PYTHON_PKGNAMEPREFIX, so that OPTIONSFILE is
>>   the same when reading and writing saved options. I think we could do
>>   this without affecting bsd.port.mk, or the ports that have already
>>   implemented a workaround. It would mean that the default behavior when
>>   using PYTHON_PKGNAMEPREFIX is to put saved options in
>>   ${PORT_DBDIR}/${_PNP}${PORTNAME}/options, where _PNP is any literal
>>   used along with PYTHON_PKGNAMEPREFIX in the port's Makefile, which
>>   some might consider a POLA violation. On the other hand, doing one
>>   thing consistently that works is better than doing something that
>>   breaks your port unexpectedly.
>>
>>   The big problem with this alternative is that PORTNAME by itself is
>>   nowhere near unique enough to avoid conflict with other ports, and
>>   would pretty much require bubbling up the definition of
>>   PYTHON_PKGNAMEPREFIX from bsd.python.mk to each affected port.
>>
>>
>>   5. What is the best alternative?
>>
>>   I find B very attractive because it frees maintainers from defining an
>>   extra variable if they don't want (i.e. good defaults), but still
>>   allows them to do so if they do want (i.e. good mechanism). It may be
>>   difficult, hackish, and error-prone though.
>>
>>   Option A would be easiest, and least traumatic both to individual
>>   ports and to the ports infrastructure itself. For this reason alone, A
>>   is probably the right choice for now.
>>
>>   Sadly, C may be a complete non-starter due to the uniqueness problem,
>>   but I wouldn't rule it out completely as a long-term follow-up to A.
>>   The way I see it working out is in three phases. Phase one is to
>>   implement option A but also invite maintainers to replace
>>
>>   PKGNAMEPREFIX= ${PYTHON_PKGNAMEPREFIX}
>>
>>   with
>>
>>   PKGNAMEPREFIX= py${PYTHON_SUFFIX}-
>>
>>   Phase two is to implement option C. Phase three is to invite
>>   maintainers to remove the option A work-around if they like the
>>   then-default behavior.
>>
>>
>>   6. Conclusion.
>>
>>   I invite commentary and criticism, especially on the potential
>>   resolutions I proposed. When we reach consensus, I will set about
>>   preparing some patches, if need be, and seeking the help of a friendly
>>   committer.
>>
>>   Thank you for your kind indulgence.
>>
>>   Cheers,
>>   John
>>   -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>   Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
>>   Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/
>>
>>   iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRKPsXAAoJEEdKvTwaez9w6yEIALFz+xrYLMdR1AhcPE2jEBd6
>>   uR4dOZye8PQFTHbvhA/t20NFTroalr2kXF49+PTqR6kCFes+vNgjIlWUdKsIngYk
>>   y5x32f60Bd/TtqPo6M2aeOE/M322U6cIH5jJhh3EBTEpm+Upd9enIetxR0NpjTnP
>>   G+6yf8e7P4oBaYGSk01i3pah00OR2YeC87rtcEdgs1sM94PjxbXZGcuA+K9UbgVQ
>>   2WB8Z4IvrD3d2UqRnC8TRq1/bZyiPSHKNeMFBRJZ4gFe/wr9G0txDnH1LTy/q0Gq
>>   kVHvdbApLYytMX/VmMMgDRnbzGS/kDMvIED8dJnwWf9pMLmzsi0pcVX/vH0m1Vw=
>>   =q6eG
>>   -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> _______________________________________________
>> freebsd-gnome at freebsd.org mailing list
>> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-gnome
>> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-gnome-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
>
>