Re: [NEW] lang/erlang 25.0.2

On 2022/07/11 19:54, Volker Schlecht wrote:
> I'm probably getting a bit ahead of myself here, but assuming for a moment,
> that erlang 25 gets in:
>
> Am I right that rebar, rebar3, elixir and tsung are the only non-broken
> ports with a build dependency on erlang?
>
> - If so, the way to properly get in elixir 1.13.x (needs erlang >= 22 and
> rebar3) is to extend erlang.port.mk to use rebar3 instead of rebar
>
> - the FreeBSD port for tsung builds with erlang 24, so there's a reasonable
> chance that it'll build with erlang 25 as well
>
> - rebar (i.e. rebar 2) would then only be needed for erlang 21, which
> assuming that I didn't miss anything would soon not be needed to build any
> other ports anymore
>
> - both riak and rabbitmq are supposedly ready for erlang 25
>
> ... which opens the question whether it even makes sense to keep rebar and
> erlang21 around long enough to justify making erlang.port.mk work with both
> versions of rebar.

possibly not indeed.

(btw the rabbitmq port is currently broken anyway.)


> On 7/10/22 19:27, Volker Schlecht wrote:
> > I still get a conflict after
> >
> > adding @option no-default-conflict to PLIST-wx
> > removing @conflict and @pkpath from PLIST-main
> >
> > However adding EPOCH = 0 to 25/Makefile seems to have helped...
> >
> > On 7/10/22 15:11, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> > > On 2022/07/10 14:30, Volker Schlecht wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > I've got a working (compiles, runs, tests pass on amd64) port for erlang
> > > > 25.0.2 attached, however there's something wrong with it that
> > > > causes it to
> > > > conflict with lang/erlang/21 and I just can't figure out what
> > > > causes that.
> > > >
> > > > What have I been missing?
> > >
> > > This might be due to the missing "@option no-default-conflict" in
> > > PLIST-wx.
> > >
> > > Other things I noticed on a read-through:
> > >
> > > "@pkgpath lang/erlang/25" should not be listed in PLIST-main (that was
> > > needed in 21 to handle a split to subpackages but doesn't apply to 25).
> > >
> > > I don't see any reason to keep "@conflict erlang-<16b.03p4v0"
> > >
>