Port dependencies on p5-Test-*

[Anton Berezin]

On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 11:22:06AM +0100, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
> Anton Berezin <tobez at tobez.org> writes:
> > Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des at des.no> writes:
> > > The rest of the ports tree checks every dependency right before building
> > > it; I don't see why Perl ports should be any different.
> > Er, I am not sure we understood each other here.  What I was trying to say
> > was this.  Let's suppose we do not have perl installed.  Let's suppose the
> > user wants to build port A which depends on perl and on a module B which is
> > both in perl's core and in a port B.  Then the list of direct dependencies
> > for port A will either include port B or not, depending on the version
> > consideration.  If we accomodate your suggestion, we cannot decide whether
> > port B will be a dependency or not until we built and installed perl.  I did
> > not look in bsd.port.mk specifically to compose this mail, but my
> > recollection is that it is not how this currently works.
> 
> Every dependency is checked *right before it is built*.  You stick it in
> the list, but you have perl at the front of the list.  It builds perl
> first, then it gets to the module, checks 'perl -M$MODULE', finds out
> that it's already there, and skips it.

But then it needs to not record it as a dependency.  Not just skip the
build.

> > Not really.  What I don't like is that we still have to deal with ports (for
> > building stuff) and packages (for recording dependencies), and dealing in
> > addition to that with modules does not help us much with the first two.  For
> > example, when you do "perl -MX -e 'print $X::VERSION'", you get back a
> > version which is OK.  Now what?  Now you *still* need to test whether p5-X
> > is in fact installed, because if it is and you do not record it as a
> > dependency you are in trouble, since the user can without any complaints
> > pkg_delete p5-X and break your port.  And if it is not installed then you
> > are going to assume that it must be in the core perl since it is there, and
> > you could be wrong on that, too (if the user just installed it from CPAN).
> 
> But the ports system knows which package corresponds to which module,
> since we put that in the dependency list:
> 
> PERL_DEPENDS= Test::Unit:devel/p5-Test-Unit
> 
> Or do you mean modules which are absorbed into core?

Yes.  For "normal" modules the existing package version check is perfectly
adequate as it is, the suggested knobs simply serve as a syntax sugar
(except PERL_TEST_DEPENDS, which is a bit more advanced).

> Still a lot less work then building a bunch ports we don't need, which
> is the current situation.

We are arguing about a relatively minor thing here, namely about whether to
keep the knowledge about dual-life modules in bsd.perl.mk or try to deduce
it in runtime (and by proxy, whether to use the existing *package* version
check or to do perl *module* version check), not about the usefulness of the
suggested knobs, remember?

\Anton.
-- 
We're going for 'working' here. 'clean' is for people with skills...
-- Flemming Jacobsen