Stefan Hagen wrote:
> Stuart Henderson wrote:
> > On 2021/12/12 12:10, Stefan Hagen wrote:
> > > Anthony J. Bentley wrote:
> > > > Stuart Henderson writes:
> > > > > Please put them in LIB_DEPENDS/WANTLIB with the annotation in the comment.
> > > > > What they're doing is not safe/reliable because it relies on the library
> > > > > ABI not changing. Adding as a LIB_DEPENDS ensures that yquake is updated
> > > > > when required due to any incompatible changes to the libraries.
> > > >
> > > > This needs to be documented somewhere. bsd.port.mk(5) implies that
> > > > LIB_DEPENDS is not necessary for dlopen'd libraries:
> > > >
> > > > LIB_DEPENDS <spec> not needed for <FULLPKGPATH> There doesn't seem to be
> > > > any WANTLIB to match the given LIB_DEPENDS. Thus, the LIB_DEPENDS won't
> > > > turn into a @depends line in the created package. This is often because
> > > > of confusion between LIB_DEPENDS and RUN_DEPENDS: RUN_DEPENDS is needed
> > > > for dlopen'd libraries.
> > >
> > > I thought so too. What about this?
> >
> >
> > But I think maybe we should just stop suggesting that completely (I
> > think it relates to a shortcut of just listing libraries for _all_
> > subpackages in LIB_DEPENDS so they end up in every LIB_DEPENDS-subpkg
> > and relying on tools to prune the ones which aren't needed; in practice
> > afaik no port does that intentionally).
> >
> > Secondly "is safer" isn't really informative. Safer why? Unless it's
> > going to explain in more detail then something like "should be added"
> > would be better than "is safer".
> >
> > (also a nit: for manpages the standard is "new sentence -> new line").
>
> I started to rewrite the paragraph and add more information about how
> dlopen is used and why rebuilds are necessary.
>
> But that made me think about how those reasons do not matter at all. We
> have libraries ports depend on. Ports should be updated when the library
> changes. No matter how the library is used. I think it's as simple as
> that.
>
> The problem is only that the ports system looks at dynamically linked
> libraries, which fails when the library is dlopened or statically linked
> in.
>
> Or maybe for stylistic reasons like setting LIB_DEPENDS globally and
> having flavors/subpackages that only need parts of it.
>
> It all boils down to:
> Libraries go to LIB_DEPENDS and WANTLIB. If you see this warning, check
> if the library is actually needed. If the answer is yes, ignore the
> warning and add a comment.
>
> Did I get this right?
>
> I reworked the paragraph a bit and dropped the multi-package case.
Another update. The whole thing was under the wrong warning.
"LIB_DEPENDS <spec> not needed for <FULLPKGPATH>" can be fixed. Also
for dlopened and statically linked libraries. It's merely a discrepancy
between LIB_DEPENDS and WANTLIB.. well... as described in the manpage ;)
If this is done correctly, lib-depends-check shows "Extra: <spec>"
lines, which are the ones that can be ignored in non-dynamic-linking
cases.
This message was not yet mentioned in bsd.port.mk(5), so I added it.
I'm still dropping the special cases mentioned under "LIB_DEPENDS not
needed for ...". Let me know if I dropped too much.
Index: ./share/man/man5/bsd.port.mk.5
===================================================================
RCS file: /home/cvs/src/share/man/man5/bsd.port.mk.5,v
retrieving revision 1.550
diff -u -p -u -p -r1.550 bsd.port.mk.5
--- ./share/man/man5/bsd.port.mk.5 22 Nov 2021 11:17:39 -0000 1.550
+++ ./share/man/man5/bsd.port.mk.5 12 Dec 2021 13:46:56 -0000
@@ -3482,6 +3482,15 @@ instead, assuming they understand the im
See
.Cm print-package-args Pq Cm wantlib-args
for details.
+.It Extra: <spec>
+Check if these libraries are really used.
+Needed libraries should always be added to LIB_DEPENDS and WANTLIB.
+In cases where the libraries are not dynamically linked in, this warning
+is shown, because we can't detect the dependency.
+If the libraries have been statically linked, or are
+loaded by
+.Xr dlopen 3 ,
+add a comment to the Makefile about it above the LIB_DEPENDS line.
.It "Fatal: can't flavor a SUBDIR"
A dependency mentions top_subdir,flavor.
Flavor would then be ignored, as it is only applied to individual ports.
@@ -3558,17 +3567,7 @@ usage.
.It LIB_DEPENDS <spec> not needed for <FULLPKGPATH>
There doesn't seem to be any WANTLIB to match the given LIB_DEPENDS.
Thus, the LIB_DEPENDS won't turn into a @depends line in the created package.
-This is often because of confusion between LIB_DEPENDS and RUN_DEPENDS:
-RUN_DEPENDS is needed for dlopen'd libraries.
-.Pp
-Might be intentional sometimes, if some compile flavors create static binaries,
-for instance.
-Also, will happen for multi-packages, where one sets LIB_DEPENDS to have
-a given build dependency (and corresponding WANTLIB for a given SUBPACKAGE).
-.Pp
-See
-.Cm print-package-args Pq Cm lib-depends-args
-for details.
+This is often because of confusion between LIB_DEPENDS and RUN_DEPENDS.
.It "Warning: FULLPKGNAME-sub defined but not FULLPKGPATH-sub"
.Ev FULLPKGNAME-sub
has been explicitly defined by the port, instead of relying on the default,
No comments:
Post a Comment