[gentoo-dev] x11-libs/lib*: wrong RDEPENDs bug

[gentoo-dev] x11-libs/lib*: wrong RDEPENDs bug

[lxnay]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 648 bytes --]

In the aim of improving binpkgs status, I filed a bunch of bugs against all the libX* available in tree that contain wrong RDEPEND bits pointing to x11-proto/* stuff.
To x11, just don't get angry (eheh), let's discuss concerns here (actually I don't see any and I am willing to fix all the ebuilds and close all my bugs if you ack).

List of Gentoo bugs:
298616
298618
298620
298621
298623
298624
298626
298627
298629
298631
298633
298634
298636
298638
298640
298642
298644
298645
298646
298648
298649
298653
298654
298656
298657
298658
298659

-- 
Fabio Erculiani
http://www.gentoo.org
http://www.sabayon.org


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 272 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] x11-libs/lib*: wrong RDEPENDs bug

[Doug Goldstein]

On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 3:10 AM,  <lxnay@gentoo.org> wrote:
> In the aim of improving binpkgs status, I filed a bunch of bugs against all
> the libX* available in tree that contain wrong RDEPEND bits pointing to
> x11-proto/* stuff.
> To x11, just don't get angry (eheh), let's discuss concerns here (actually I
> don't see any and I am willing to fix all the ebuilds and close all my bugs
> if you ack).

Why not provide some actual meat and potatoes here instead of a
useless e-mail with bug numbers and some stupid attempt at humor at
the expense of the x11 herd?

Re: [gentoo-dev] x11-libs/lib*: wrong RDEPENDs bug

[Ben de Groot]

2009/12/28 Doug Goldstein <cardoe@gentoo.org>:
> Why not provide some actual meat and potatoes here instead of a
> useless e-mail with bug numbers and some stupid attempt at humor at
> the expense of the x11 herd?

That hostility was totally uncalled for. Please try to remain civil.

Cheers,
-- 
Ben de Groot
Gentoo Linux developer (qt, media, lxde, desktop-misc)
______________________________________________________

Re: [gentoo-dev] x11-libs/lib*: wrong RDEPENDs bug

[Petteri Räty]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 363 bytes --]

On 12/28/2009 11:10 AM, lxnay@gentoo.org wrote:

> To x11, just don't get angry (eheh), let's discuss concerns here
> (actually I don't see any and I am willing to fix all the ebuilds and
> close all my bugs if you ack).
> 

Filing bugs first and then opening discussion here doesn't make sense.
It should be the other way around.

Regards,
Petteri


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 262 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] x11-libs/lib*: wrong RDEPENDs bug

[Fabio Erculiani]

I discussed this a few weeks ago with some devs on IRC and the general
answer was, file bugs.
I filed bugs. About the rest, I decline any comment. Have fun.

-- 
Fabio Erculiani
http://www.sabayon.org
http://www.gentoo.org

Re: [gentoo-dev] x11-libs/lib*: wrong RDEPENDs bug

[Jeroen Roovers]

On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 10:10:48 +0100 (CET)
lxnay@gentoo.org wrote:

> let's discuss concerns here (actually I don't see any and I am
> willing to fix all the ebuilds and close all my bugs if you ack).

If they are genuine bugs, then there isn't anything to discuss.

> List of Gentoo bugs:

Tracker bug is #298759[1]


Regards,
     jer


[1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=298759

Re: [gentoo-dev] x11-libs/lib*: wrong RDEPENDs bug

[Fabio Erculiani]

On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 8:15 PM, Jeroen Roovers <jer@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 10:10:48 +0100 (CET)
> lxnay@gentoo.org wrote:
>
>> let's discuss concerns here (actually I don't see any and I am
>> willing to fix all the ebuilds and close all my bugs if you ack).
>
> If they are genuine bugs, then there isn't anything to discuss.

Thanks, I will also create a tracker bug next time.

>
>> List of Gentoo bugs:
>
> Tracker bug is #298759[1]
>
>
> Regards,
>     jer
>
>
> [1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=298759
>
>
>



-- 
Fabio Erculiani
http://www.sabayon.org
http://www.gentoo.org

Re: [gentoo-dev] x11-libs/lib*: wrong RDEPENDs bug

[Doug Goldstein]

On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 1:15 PM, Jeroen Roovers <jer@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 10:10:48 +0100 (CET)
> lxnay@gentoo.org wrote:
>
>> let's discuss concerns here (actually I don't see any and I am
>> willing to fix all the ebuilds and close all my bugs if you ack).
>
> If they are genuine bugs, then there isn't anything to discuss.
>
>> List of Gentoo bugs:
>
> Tracker bug is #298759[1]
>
>
> Regards,
>     jer
>
>
> [1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=298759
>
>
>

Then there was no need to waste everyone's time with a backhanded
comment about the X11 herd. And we can all get on with our lives.

-- 
Doug Goldstein

Re: [gentoo-dev] x11-libs/lib*: wrong RDEPENDs bug

[Nirbheek Chauhan]

On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 11:15 AM, Doug Goldstein <cardoe@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Then there was no need to waste everyone's time with a backhanded
> comment about the X11 herd. And we can all get on with our lives.
>

From your perspective it might've looked like a backhanded comment,
but I know that scarabeus and lxnay know each other, and I believe
they discussed this on #gentoo-desktop, so it didn't seem that way to
me.

"Assume people mean well" :)

regards,

-- 
~Nirbheek Chauhan

Gentoo GNOME+Mozilla Team

Re: [gentoo-dev] x11-libs/lib*: wrong RDEPENDs bug

[Samuli Suominen]

On 12/28/2009 11:10 AM, lxnay@gentoo.org wrote:
> In the aim of improving binpkgs status, I filed a bunch of bugs against
> all the libX* available in tree that contain wrong RDEPEND bits pointing
> to x11-proto/* stuff.
> To x11, just don't get angry (eheh), let's discuss concerns here
> (actually I don't see any and I am willing to fix all the ebuilds and
> close all my bugs if you ack).

Xdbe.h is part of libXext:

Xdbe.h:#include <X11/extensions/dbe.h>

x11-libs/libXext (/usr/include/X11/extensions/Xdbe.h)

Where dbe.h is coming from xextproto:

x11-proto/xextproto (/usr/include/X11/extensions/dbe.h)

As such, xextproto should be a RDEPEND of libXext or otherwise
you'd be breaking everything that's using libXext's Xdbe.h as
a build depend because having xextproto only in DEPEND would allow
--depclean to remove the required header from system

.... my 1 or 2 cents

Re: [gentoo-dev] x11-libs/lib*: wrong RDEPENDs bug

[Fabio Erculiani]

On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 8:24 PM, Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@gentoo.org> wrote:
> [...snip...]

Samuli I know, but actually Zac told me that as of now RDEPENDs are
not considered that way. I knew that you were going to comment here
(hence why I posted), maybe it's a good time to clear out our mind and
eventually decide how to deal with those. Because most of the ebuilds
don't seem to follow your logic.

-- 
Fabio Erculiani
http://www.sabayon.org
http://www.gentoo.org

Re: [gentoo-dev] x11-libs/lib*: wrong RDEPENDs bug

[Nirbheek Chauhan]

On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 12:54 AM, Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Xdbe.h is part of libXext:
>
> Xdbe.h:#include <X11/extensions/dbe.h>
>
> x11-libs/libXext (/usr/include/X11/extensions/Xdbe.h)
>
> Where dbe.h is coming from xextproto:
>
> x11-proto/xextproto (/usr/include/X11/extensions/dbe.h)
>
> As such, xextproto should be a RDEPEND of libXext or otherwise
> you'd be breaking everything that's using libXext's Xdbe.h as
> a build depend because having xextproto only in DEPEND would allow
> --depclean to remove the required header from system
>

It won't do that unless you do --with-bdeps=y ; plus removing headers
from the system won't cause the packages to stop working, and if
someone removes the headers, they'll be pulled back on upgrade.


-- 
~Nirbheek Chauhan

Gentoo GNOME+Mozilla Team

Re: [gentoo-dev] x11-libs/lib*: wrong RDEPENDs bug

[Rémi Cardona]

Le 28/12/2009 10:10, lxnay@gentoo.org a écrit :
> List of Gentoo bugs:
> 298616
> 298618
> 298620
> 298621
> 298623
> 298624
> 298626
> 298627
> 298629
> 298631
> 298633
> 298634
> 298636
> 298638
> 298640
> 298642
> 298644
> 298645
> 298646
> 298648
> 298649
> 298653
> 298654
> 298656
> 298657
> 298658
> 298659

RESOLVED -> WONTFIX

Others and myself have spent considerable time making those deps the way
they are because :

1) upstream packaging is a bit uncommon
2) ebuild deps don't fit with upstream deps
3) a few embedded devs told me they wiped /usr/include when making images

So if you want to fix this properly, a new DEP variable needs to be
cooked up : "add the following deps to ebuilds' DEPEND when those ebuids
DEPEND on this ebuild".

Until such a variable exist, having the protos in both DEPEND and
RDEPEND is the only _valid_ solution.

Thanks

Rémi

Re: [gentoo-dev] x11-libs/lib*: wrong RDEPENDs bug

[Fabio Erculiani]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1125 bytes --]



On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 9:06 PM, Rémi Cardona <remi@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> RESOLVED -> WONTFIX
>
> Others and myself have spent considerable time making those deps the way
> they are because :
>
> 1) upstream packaging is a bit uncommon
> 2) ebuild deps don't fit with upstream deps
> 3) a few embedded devs told me they wiped /usr/include when making images

What all this has to do with the fact that they are just build dependencies? Just wondering.

>
> So if you want to fix this properly, a new DEP variable needs to be
> cooked up : "add the following deps to ebuilds' DEPEND when those ebuids
> DEPEND on this ebuild".

Other package managers out there have explicit build dependency lists, so, if DEPEND is not really a list of build dependencies, yeah, I agree, we need a list describing "strict" build dependencies.

>
> Until such a variable exist, having the protos in both DEPEND and
> RDEPEND is the only _valid_ solution.
>
> Thanks

Others here gave opposite opinion by the way.

>
> Rémi
>
>



-- 
Fabio Erculiani
http://www.sabayon.org
http://www.gentoo.org


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 272 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] x11-libs/lib*: wrong RDEPENDs bug

[David Leverton]

On Monday 28 December 2009 20:50:17 Fabio Erculiani wrote:
> What all this has to do with the fact that they are just build
> dependencies? Just wondering.

They're not just build dependencies.  They're required to use the library in a 
certain way, namely to compile other programs against it.  As long as we 
don't have compile-against dependencies, the only correct way to express that 
is RDEPEND (and also DEPEND because they're /also/ needed to build the 
library itself).

Re: [gentoo-dev] x11-libs/lib*: wrong RDEPENDs bug

[Fabio Erculiani]

On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 9:51 PM, David Leverton
<levertond@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Monday 28 December 2009 20:50:17 Fabio Erculiani wrote:
>> What all this has to do with the fact that they are just build
>> dependencies? Just wondering.
>
> They're not just build dependencies.  They're required to use the library in a
> certain way, namely to compile other programs against it.  As long as we
> don't have compile-against dependencies, the only correct way to express that
> is RDEPEND (and also DEPEND because they're /also/ needed to build the
> library itself).

To me you are saying that DEPEND would work just fine. No?

>
>



-- 
Fabio Erculiani
http://www.sabayon.org
http://www.gentoo.org

Re: [gentoo-dev] x11-libs/lib*: wrong RDEPENDs bug

[Fabio Erculiani]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1283 bytes --]

Sorry, some more bits here:
AFAIK, Portage considers DEPEND when used as "source-based package manager" (and emerge --depclean stuff) while it ignores them when binpkgs come into play.
So, (I ask Zac to correct me), putting x11-protos to DEPEND doesn't really change much for 99% of Portage users (those who are using it to *compile* pkgs). While it changes a lot for binary package managers, which hopefully don't consider DEPEND at all (at least this was the initial idea). The fact is, since Portage binary package management is really and unfortunately a "joke" as of today, the amount of people using it versus the amount of people not using it is really big (that's why I wrote a separate app). Thus, many ebuilds have broken RDEPEND/DEPEND and as you (all) have proven, there is not even a real "container" of build dependencies nor a clear idea among developers (my initial email wanted to bring devs to this exact point, it seems I did it).
Moreover, the amount of legacy, undocumented, perhaps *workaroundish* solutions inside Portage codebase are not really helping in fixing this situation. I say, unfortunately, not to blame anybody. A lot of work is being done lately to try to improve it.


-- 
Fabio Erculiani
http://www.sabayon.org
http://www.gentoo.org


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 272 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] x11-libs/lib*: wrong RDEPENDs bug

[David Leverton]

On Monday 28 December 2009 21:04:01 Fabio Erculiani wrote:
> To me you are saying that DEPEND would work just fine. No?

Setting the proto as DEPEND for the library wouldn't work because a user could 
install the library, remove every DEPEND-only package and legitimately expect 
the library to continue working, including being able to build other programs 
against it.  Putting the proto in DEPEND for every package that uses the 
library isn't good because (unless the package references the proto directly) 
the fact that the proto is needed is an internal detail of the library, that 
might even change between versions, and packages using the library shouldn't 
have to know about it.

Re: [gentoo-dev] x11-libs/lib*: wrong RDEPENDs bug

[Rémi Cardona]

Le 28/12/2009 22:04, Fabio Erculiani a écrit :
> On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 9:51 PM, David Leverton
> <levertond@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> On Monday 28 December 2009 20:50:17 Fabio Erculiani wrote:
>>> What all this has to do with the fact that they are just build
>>> dependencies? Just wondering.
>>
>> They're not just build dependencies.  They're required to use the library in a
>> certain way, namely to compile other programs against it.  As long as we
>> don't have compile-against dependencies, the only correct way to express that
>> is RDEPEND (and also DEPEND because they're /also/ needed to build the
>> library itself).
> 
> To me you are saying that DEPEND would work just fine. No?

No, but I understand why you're insisting. It took us a few weeks to
wrap our heads around this to understand it.

Let's take an example (bug #228211 but there are dozens more).

In this example, libfakekey does : #include <XTest.h>

and its configure.ac checks for "xtst.pc". Both files are provided by
x11-libs/libXtst so this dep is added to DEPEND and RDEPEND.

The problem comes from libXtst's XTest.h which #includes <XInput.h>
which was provided by x11-proto/inputproto [1].

inputproto is/was a build-time dep of libXtst.
 - libXtst _directly_ requires inputproto at build-time only
 - libXtst _directly_ requires libXi at build-time and run-time

However :
 - requiring libXtst at build-time _also_ requires inputproto.

For most users out there, this would never be a problem since most
Gentoo users always keep build-time deps on their systems.

The problem arises for people who only keep run-time deps, usually for
binary packages. inputproto being a DEPEND-only dep of libXtst, binary
users will never get inputproto when they build libfakekey.

So there were 3 solutions :

1) add explicit deps in _all_ packages that DEPEND on libXtst to _also_
depend on inputproto even if they don't use it at all (most don't, they
just use XTest functions).

2) add inputproto to libXtst's DEPEND and RDEPEND

3) modify EAPI to add a new *DEPEND variable to cater X's very special
needs.

Solution #1 is error prone. If we "fix" ebuilds now, new ebuilds might
pop up later with "broken" dependencies. No go.

Solution #3 really isn't for me. I tried getting near PMS and I got bit.
If anyone wants to do this, I'll help, but I won't do this on my own.

So we went with solution #2. Yes, it does add nasty little headers on a
binary distribution, but that was a far better compromise than any of
the other 2 solutions.

Really, the correct solution (please _listen_ and _trust_ me on this) is
to add a new dependency variable to EAPI to correctly describe how X
headers and libs really work. That's solution #3. I agree with you,
pulling protos in both DEPEND and RDEPEND is a hack, but it's *much*
better than the other alternatives.

Rémi

[1] This file is now part of libXi, but the problem has now shifted to
XI.h, so it's still going to be the exact same problem today, but for
the sake of simplicity, I'll keep it short.

Re: [gentoo-dev] x11-libs/lib*: wrong RDEPENDs bug

[Fabio Erculiani]

Interesting, eventually somebody gave me a detailed and technical
explanation without [bla bla snip]. Thanks Rémi.
Yes, I agree with you that the best (and the one I would go for, too)
solution is adding support to a new *DEPEND, perhaps one that could
"host" build-deps only. It looks weird that other PMs out there do
that since 1994 (replace 1994 with older value).
Perhaps adding a big fat # XXX somewhere in ebuilds would have helped
us all in saving some time today.
So, at least for now, I suspect I have to give up and close my shiny
27 bugs. Right?

-- 
Fabio Erculiani
http://www.sabayon.org
http://www.gentoo.org

Re: [gentoo-dev] x11-libs/lib*: wrong RDEPENDs bug

[Rémi Cardona]

Le 28/12/2009 23:53, Fabio Erculiani a écrit :
> Interesting, eventually somebody gave me a detailed and technical
> explanation without [bla bla snip]. Thanks Rémi.
> Yes, I agree with you that the best (and the one I would go for, too)
> solution is adding support to a new *DEPEND, perhaps one that could
> "host" build-deps only. It looks weird that other PMs out there do
> that since 1994 (replace 1994 with older value).
> Perhaps adding a big fat # XXX somewhere in ebuilds would have helped
> us all in saving some time today.

We could indeed, but back then we had something like 20~30 dupes so it
felt like an obvious fix. I'll start adding comments in the overlay to
clear it up.

> So, at least for now, I suspect I have to give up and close my shiny
> 27 bugs. Right?

I'm afraid so, yes :)

But if you do want to tackle the EAPI/PMS issue, feel free to reuse the
tracker for that. I'll gladly tune in for that discussion.

Cheers,

Rémi

Re: [gentoo-dev] x11-libs/lib*: wrong RDEPENDs bug

[Henry Gebhardt]

On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 23:31:44 +0100
Rémi Cardona <remi@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Le 28/12/2009 22:04, Fabio Erculiani a écrit :
> > On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 9:51 PM, David Leverton
> > <levertond@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >> On Monday 28 December 2009 20:50:17 Fabio Erculiani wrote:
> >>> What all this has to do with the fact that they are just
> >>> build dependencies? Just wondering.
> >>
> >> They're not just build dependencies.  They're required to
> >> use the library in a certain way, namely to compile other
> >> programs against it.  As long as we don't have
> >> compile-against dependencies, the only correct way to
> >> express that is RDEPEND (and also DEPEND because
> >> they're /also/ needed to build the library itself).
> > 
> > To me you are saying that DEPEND would work just fine. No?
> 
> No, but I understand why you're insisting. It took us a few
> weeks to wrap our heads around this to understand it.
> 
> Let's take an example (bug #228211 but there are dozens more).
> 
> In this example, libfakekey does : #include <XTest.h>
> 
> and its configure.ac checks for "xtst.pc". Both files are
> provided by x11-libs/libXtst so this dep is added to DEPEND and
> RDEPEND.
> 
> The problem comes from libXtst's XTest.h which #includes
> <XInput.h> which was provided by x11-proto/inputproto [1].
> 
> inputproto is/was a build-time dep of libXtst.
>  - libXtst _directly_ requires inputproto at build-time only
>  - libXtst _directly_ requires libXi at build-time and run-time
> 
> However :
>  - requiring libXtst at build-time _also_ requires inputproto.
> 
> For most users out there, this would never be a problem since
> most Gentoo users always keep build-time deps on their systems.
> 
> The problem arises for people who only keep run-time deps,
> usually for binary packages. inputproto being a DEPEND-only dep
> of libXtst, binary users will never get inputproto when they
> build libfakekey.
> 
> So there were 3 solutions :
> 
> 1) add explicit deps in _all_ packages that DEPEND on libXtst
> to _also_ depend on inputproto even if they don't use it at all
> (most don't, they just use XTest functions).
> 
> 2) add inputproto to libXtst's DEPEND and RDEPEND
> 
> 3) modify EAPI to add a new *DEPEND variable to cater X's very
> special needs.

Isn't there a fourth solution?

4) add a USE-flag, say "devel", that, when enabled, allows
compiling programs against the package. x11-libs/libXtst would
have an RDEPEND like this:
RDEPEND="devel? x11-libs/inputproto"

Anything wrong with that?

~H

Re: [gentoo-dev] x11-libs/lib*: wrong RDEPENDs bug

[Rémi Cardona]

Le 29/12/2009 14:43, Henry Gebhardt a écrit :
> 4) add a USE-flag, say "devel", that, when enabled, allows
> compiling programs against the package. x11-libs/libXtst would
> have an RDEPEND like this:
> RDEPEND="devel? x11-libs/inputproto"

This doesn't solve anything. It will just annoy users as they will have
to enable USE=devel.

So it's like the current situation, only way more annoying...

Rémi

Re: [gentoo-dev] x11-libs/lib*: wrong RDEPENDs bug

[Samuli Suominen]

On 12/28/2009 10:51 PM, David Leverton wrote:
> On Monday 28 December 2009 20:50:17 Fabio Erculiani wrote:
>> What all this has to do with the fact that they are just build
>> dependencies? Just wondering.
> 
> They're not just build dependencies.  They're required to use the library in a 
> certain way, namely to compile other programs against it.  As long as we 
> don't have compile-against dependencies, the only correct way to express that 
> is RDEPEND (and also DEPEND because they're /also/ needed to build the 
> library itself).
> 

That's what I've been trying to say (also with my example).
That is, they are more than DEPENDs.

Thanks,

Samuli

Re: [gentoo-dev] x11-libs/lib*: wrong RDEPENDs bug

[Fabio Erculiani]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2001 bytes --]



On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 10:32 PM, Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 12/28/2009 10:51 PM, David Leverton wrote:
>> On Monday 28 December 2009 20:50:17 Fabio Erculiani wrote:
>>> What all this has to do with the fact that they are just build
>>> dependencies? Just wondering.
>>
>> They're not just build dependencies.  They're required to use the library in a
>> certain way, namely to compile other programs against it.  As long as we
>> don't have compile-against dependencies, the only correct way to express that
>> is RDEPEND (and also DEPEND because they're /also/ needed to build the
>> library itself).
>>
>
> That's what I've been trying to say (also with my example).
> That is, they are more than DEPENDs.

How comes,
this is the list of files owned by xproto:

/usr/include/X11/extensions/dmxext.h
/usr/include/X11/extensions/dmxproto.h
/usr/share/doc/dmxproto-2.2.2/ChangeLog.bz2
/usr/lib64/pkgconfig/dmxproto.pc
/usr/include/X11/DECkeysym.h
/usr/include/X11/Xos.h
/usr/include/X11/HPkeysym.h
/usr/include/X11/Xosdefs.h
/usr/include/X11/Xwinsock.h
/usr/include/X11/Xos_r.h
/usr/include/X11/Xalloca.h
/usr/include/X11/Xatom.h
/usr/include/X11/Xfuncproto.h
/usr/include/X11/Sunkeysym.h
/usr/include/X11/Xdefs.h
/usr/include/X11/ap_keysym.h
/usr/include/X11/Xarch.h
/usr/include/X11/keysymdef.h
/usr/include/X11/Xw32defs.h
/usr/include/X11/Xprotostr.h
/usr/include/X11/keysym.h
/usr/include/X11/X.h
/usr/include/X11/Xwindows.h
/usr/include/X11/Xproto.h
/usr/include/X11/XWDFile.h
/usr/include/X11/Xthreads.h
/usr/include/X11/Xpoll.h
/usr/include/X11/Xmd.h
/usr/include/X11/Xfuncs.h
/usr/include/X11/XF86keysym.h
/usr/share/doc/xproto-7.0.16/ChangeLog.bz2
/usr/lib64/pkgconfig/xproto.pc

How can a bunch of .h and pkgconfig files *do* all that magic you are talking about?

>
> Thanks,

You are more than welcome,

>
> Samuli
>
>



-- 
Fabio Erculiani
http://www.sabayon.org
http://www.gentoo.org


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 272 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] x11-libs/lib*: wrong RDEPENDs bug

[Gokdeniz Karadag]

Fabio Erculiani demis ki::
> How comes,
> this is the list of files owned by xproto:
> 
> /usr/include/X11/extensions/dmxext.h
> /usr/include/X11/extensions/dmxproto.h
> /usr/share/doc/dmxproto-2.2.2/ChangeLog.bz2
> /usr/lib64/pkgconfig/dmxproto.pc
> /usr/include/X11/DECkeysym.h
.....
> 
> How can a bunch of .h and pkgconfig files *do* all that magic you are
> talking about?
> 

X preprocesses some files at each startup(using the C preprocessor(cpp) via
xrdb configuration tool) Strange but true.

Macros defined by these .h files might be used during this configuration.

-- 
Gokdeniz Karadag

Re: [gentoo-dev] x11-libs/lib*: wrong RDEPENDs bug

[Fabio Erculiani]

On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 10:48 PM, Gokdeniz Karadag <gokdenizk@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> X preprocesses some files at each startup(using the C preprocessor(cpp) via
> xrdb configuration tool) Strange but true.
>
> Macros defined by these .h files might be used during this configuration.

That's the missing bit! Thanks for the answer.

>
> --
> Gokdeniz Karadag
>
>
>



-- 
Fabio Erculiani
http://www.sabayon.org
http://www.gentoo.org

Re: [gentoo-dev] x11-libs/lib*: wrong RDEPENDs bug

[Samuli Suominen]

On 12/28/2009 11:47 PM, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
> 
> 
> On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 10:32 PM, Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@gentoo.org>
> wrote:
>> On 12/28/2009 10:51 PM, David Leverton wrote:
>>> On Monday 28 December 2009 20:50:17 Fabio Erculiani wrote:
>>>> What all this has to do with the fact that they are just build
>>>> dependencies? Just wondering.
>>>
>>> They're not just build dependencies.  They're required to use the
>>> library in a
>>> certain way, namely to compile other programs against it.  As long as we
>>> don't have compile-against dependencies, the only correct way to
>>> express that
>>> is RDEPEND (and also DEPEND because they're /also/ needed to build the
>>> library itself).
>>>
>>
>> That's what I've been trying to say (also with my example).
>> That is, they are more than DEPENDs.
> 
> How comes,
> this is the list of files owned by xproto:
> 

...

> How can a bunch of .h and pkgconfig files *do* all that magic you are
> talking about?

There's no magic involved.

In order to _use_ libXext, which in this case is building something
against libXext, also xextproto must be around, because libXext's
includes are including xextproto's includes.

As in, libXext must have xextproto around to be a complete package.

Re: [gentoo-dev] x11-libs/lib*: wrong RDEPENDs bug

[Fabio Erculiani]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 189 bytes --]

In any case, I think that this situation should be addressed, and perhaps a comment from PMS might help.

Regards,
-- 
Fabio Erculiani
http://www.sabayon.org
http://www.gentoo.org


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 272 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] x11-libs/lib*: wrong RDEPENDs bug

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 611 bytes --]

On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 22:54:42 +0100 (CET)
Fabio Erculiani <lxnay@gentoo.org> wrote:
> In any case, I think that this situation should be addressed, and
> perhaps a comment from PMS might help.

The PMS side is that we know that the current three DEPEND variables
are nowhere near enough, and there are proposals for fixing it
properly, but they're not things that are easy to implement in Portage,
so there's no timescale.

In the mean time, RDEPEND is the closest we have to a dependency saying
"if I'm used to satisfy a build dependency, then this must also be
installed".

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]