On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 01:35:38PM +0000, Stuart Henderson wrote: > On 2021/02/22 14:05, Alex Raschi wrote: > > I attached the new versions of skalibs (2.10.0.2) and execline > > (2.8.0.0), these fixes a few bugs and change backtick(1) options > > slightly. > > > > I also attached a new port of the newly created mdoc(7) ports of the > > execline HTML documentation. With this one i get: > > > > Warning: execline-man-pages-2.8.0.0.1 conflicts with etsh-5.4.0v0 > > (shells/etsh):/usr/local/man/man1/if.1 > > > > However shells/etsh does not seem to provide a real if(1) command, i > > checked the PLIST of etsh and the if command seems to be an internal > > shell command (execline provides an if command but does not conflict > > with etsh). Any suggestion to fix this? > > either register the conflict with @conflict markers (in both ports), > or install docs to a different dir. conflict markers seems ok to me. > > it might be better to just include the manuals in the main package. > you can use multiple DISTFILES. > > > As said in the previous emails i get these with execline too: > > > > in default FLAVOR: the following libraries in WANTLIB look like masked by > > RUN_DEPENDS: skarnet > > in FLAVOR "static": the following libraries in WANTLIB look like masked by > > RUN_DEPENDS: skarnet > > > > I have also checked that these ports work with -fno-common. > > > > Any comments and/or OKs? > > SHARED_LIBS = execline 2.8 > SHARED_LIBS = skarnet 2.10 > > start with 0.0. if the build system doesn't produce a library with the > right name to match this, patch or pass in via make(1) variables until > it does. > > https://www.openbsd.org/faq/ports/specialtopics.html#SharedLibs > > @so lib/libexecline.so > @lib lib/libexecline.so.${LIBexecline_VERSION} > @bin lib/libexecline.so.2.8.0.0 > > @so lib/libskarnet.so > @lib lib/libskarnet.so.${LIBskarnet_VERSION} > @bin lib/libskarnet.so.2.10.0.2 > > there should just be "@lib lib/libxyz.so.${LIBxyz}" lines, no > symlinks etc. > > these are probably what's responsible for portcheck's "masked by" warning. > > pkg/DESCR says "has no security issues" > > a bold claim! I don't think it's a good idea to include that bit. > > I would drop the static flavours unless there's a really good reason > for it (usually "it's helpful to run in a chroot for a webserver"). >
The reason for the static flavor is basically the same as for example shells/dash: it can be really useful in a chroot since it acts functionally the same as a shell. Anyway i will remove it in case. I modified the ports to match your suggestions, below there is the diff to add @conflict to etsh. Thanks! Index: shells/etsh/pkg/PLIST =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/ports/shells/etsh/pkg/PLIST,v retrieving revision 1.2 diff -u -p -r1.2 PLIST --- shells/etsh/pkg/PLIST 30 Mar 2019 18:14:32 -0000 1.2 +++ shells/etsh/pkg/PLIST 22 Feb 2021 19:55:45 -0000 @@ -1,5 +1,6 @@ @comment $OpenBSD: PLIST,v 1.2 2019/03/30 18:14:32 bcallah Exp $ @conflict osh-* +@conflict execline-* @pkgpath shells/osh @shell bin/etsh @shell bin/tsh
skalibs.tar.gz
Description: application/tar-gz
execline.tar.gz
Description: application/tar-gz
