Re: libdmx removal incomplete?

On 2021/11/29 6:45, Sebastien Marie wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 28, 2021 at 11:17:01PM +0000, Alexander wrote:
> >
> > Just to gauge what to expect from this and whether I did this wrong:
> > After configuring /etc/sysclean.ignore I get 3382 files of which 3274
> > are in /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts/. Are numbers this large to be expected?
>
> There are a bunch of files from /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts/ which were
> removed. On Sept 3, 3274 files were removed.
>
> https://github.com/openbsd/xenocara/commit/65ebc3c6dcf6461818fcc3917f443b4ab5b1ce1c
>
> So it is expected if your install was done before Sept 3, and your
> current version is after Sept 3.

That is the case, the install was a 6.9 continuing in -current.
The diff you pointed to actually turns out to account for the majority
of the files listed. So that cuts down the output significantly already.
>
> > Also: The above mentioned dmx files are not listed. Does that mean my
> > assumption that they are related to the removed libdmx is false or did I
> > screw something else up?
>
> $ pkg_locate dmx | grep X11R6
> xshare70:/usr/X11R6/include/X11/extensions/dmx.h
> xshare70:/usr/X11R6/include/X11/extensions/dmxproto.h
> xshare70:/usr/X11R6/lib/pkgconfig/dmxproto.pc
>
> These files are still part of xshare70 set, and should not be
> removed. There are part of xorgproto (xenocara/proto/xorgproto).

Thanks a lot, this really confused me.
>
> > Lastly: From your emails it seems to me that the use of sysclean after
> > upgrading is very much encouraged if not necessary. Then why is it not
> > included in base (especially when it's developed by OpenBSD developers)?
> > Or am I misunderstanding the requirements for inclusion of packages in
> > base?
>
> If removal of files is required, it is explicitly mentioned in
> upgradeXX.html or current.html. Very few files will broke your system
> if present.
>
> In the other side, removing files that are used will broke your system
> (for example, if you compile a program yourself, it will use system
> libraries like libc, libm...).
>
Thanks for the explanation, that makes sense.

Best regards,
Alexander