Re: NEW: textproc/libdiff

Hi Ingo --


On 08/15/18 15:51, Ingo Schwarze wrote:
> Hi Anton,
>
> Anton Lindqvist wrote on Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 08:38:46PM +0200:
>
>> This is an upcoming dependency for textproc/lowdown and also my first
>> time porting a library(!).
> While kristaps@ is famous for writing great code, he is also somewhat
> well-known for declaring random fragments of his code as "libraries"
> that probably shouldn't be public libraries.
>
> Is libdiff used by anything else besides lowdown?
>
> If not, should it maybe just be part of the lowdown port,
> using two DISTFILES as explained in bsd.port.mk(5)?
>
> This would also have the advantage of avoiding installation of files
> with excessively generic names like /usr/local/include/diff.h and
> /usr/local/man/man3/diff.3.
>
> I'm not sure, if this question is too naive, i hope a real porter
> will correct me.

I would agree with your analysis. The only thing I would add is if
kristaps@ is likely to use this code in other projects, to just go ahead
and make the port now since it's small enough.

Or maybe better yet, if he's not going to be using it for anything else,
ask him to (re-include?) the libdiff stuff in lowdown. I don't use
lowdown, so I'm not really sure if this libdiff library is old code
that's being spun off into its own library or new code altogether.

~Brian

>> One note: I ended up using ALL_TARGET=libdiff.a to prevent building two
>> utility programs that are included in libdiff. However, the make install
>> target depends on all which causes the same two programs to end up being
>> built anyway but they are not installed. Should the make install target
>> be patched to instead depend on libdiff.a? Or no biggie?
> If libdiff provides utility programs upstream and *if* we conclude
> that libdiff deserves its own port, maybe these utility programs
> simply deserve installing? On the other hand, if libdiff gets
> included into the lowdown port, i'd rather not build them.
>
> In any case, the upstream Makefile is inconsistent.
> The "install" target should only depend on what it actually
> installs. And i'd argue that the "all" target should only
> build what is installed.
>
> So either install the two in post-install (and do not set ALL_TARGET),
> or patch "all" to not include them (and do not set ALL_TARGET either).
>
>
> Other random observations:
>
> - Your SHARED_LIBS line is wrong, it ought to start at 0.0,
> and it must have exactly two digits.
>
> - However, this thing is not actually building or installing any
> shared library at all, which is another strong hint that it
> may not need its own port, and which means that you don't want
> any SHARED_LIBS line even if it gets its own port.
>
> - The HOMEPAGE gives me "403 Forbidden".
>
> Yours,
> Ingo
>