On Thu, May 04, 2023 at 09:27:53PM +0200, Rafael Sadowski wrote:
> BUT there are changes in all other new ports :-D
That's what I wrote:
> > > > All but qtgrpc need update-plist to remove common directories.
Now all PLISTs are stable, WANTLIBs as well.
> > Shouldn't all PX_LINUX checks eventually honour PX_OPENBSD as well?
> > Or do you want to piggy back PX_LINUX and only maintain the bare minimum of
> > OpenBSD specific macro foo?
>
> We need PX_OPENBSD only for some corner cases.
Fine with me, that just wasn't clear.
> > *NOT*, sorry
> >
> > Syscalls must come from libc, lots of ports have been patched and fixed
> > upstream to not use direct syscall(2) but instead call into libc functions.
>
> Ops, for sure! I forgot to add a "!", patch fixed!
No idea about runtime usage/breakage with this, but with the macro fixed no
executable or *.so* file in qtquick3dphysics shows direct syscall usage, so
that's good.
> > > > What's the story with s/NULL/0/ in the patches?
> > >
> > > This fix (our?) clang build. C++ template magic.
> >
> > Can you mention this in a comment? It saves time and effort for anyone not
> > intimitely familiar with the C++ ecosystem; I can't tell if this is a legit
> > fix (in our OpenBSD ports case) or just a workaround.
>
> Comments added, new tarball attached.
Thanks.
Your new tarball lacks qtquick3dphysics patches that do /reinterpret/s,NULL,0,
in two other header files. I redid them myself to fix the bulid and ended up
with the exact patches from your first tarball.
Still feels wrong to have that as a fix, but I don't want to endulge in this
C++ mess now, either...
Otherwise all ports build and package fine.
Are they supposed to have tests? I see this for all of them:
$ make test
...
No tests were found!!!
What are these modules needed for? Any particular future port?
OK kn port-wise
