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,
