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

Tue Mar 19 18:02:35 UTC 2013

On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Koop Mast <kwm at rainbow-runner.nl> wrote:
> 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.

My suggest was for solve an issue in the OPTIONS, so that way all
other ports will be fixed. The py-gobject isn't only a port that have
this issue as it's a bug in the OPTIONS.

> -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"
>>
>>
>>
>

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