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

Tue Mar 19 16:56:06 UTC 2013

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.

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"

-- 
mezz.freebsd at gmail.com - mezz at FreeBSD.org
FreeBSD GNOME Team
http://www.FreeBSD.org/gnome/ - gnome at FreeBSD.org