Bug 212973
| Summary: | devel/protobuf: Upgrade to 3.1.0 | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Ports & Packages | Reporter: | clutton | ||||||||
| Component: | Individual Port(s) | Assignee: | Po-Chuan Hsieh <sunpoet> | ||||||||
| Status: | Closed Overcome By Events | ||||||||||
| Severity: | Affects Only Me | CC: | ejbevenour, pi, sunpoet, tomek | ||||||||
| Priority: | --- | Keywords: | patch, patch-ready | ||||||||
| Version: | Latest | Flags: | pi:
maintainer-feedback+
|
||||||||
| Hardware: | Any | ||||||||||
| OS: | Any | ||||||||||
| Attachments: |
|
||||||||||
I searched for dependent ports using grep -Rl 'devel/protobuf' * > /tmp/file and reduced it by the depends that aren't exactly protobuf. Using that way, I found 33 other ports. It needs to be checked if they still build with the new protobuf and probably if they run, too. I assume there are many indirect dependencies, so other ports might be affected as well. It's not a trivial task. There's already 3.1.0 out there, btw. The 3.0.0-alpha1 relnotes say: However, we do not generally recommend that existing users migrate from proto2 from proto3 due to API incompatibility, and we will continue to support proto2 for a long time. So maybe add this as devel/protobuf3 ? (In reply to Kurt Jaeger from comment #2) Or instead create devel/protobuf2, depends on what is common practice now. Indeed, figuring out would be not a simple task. My encounter with protobuf was 3rd version. May be someone more experienced could answer how much are those two are incompatible, and which one in use ( is it a ruby way: everyone use new things, or is it a python way :D) Here is a list of ports that depend on protobuf. https://www.freshports.org/search.php?stype=depends_all&method=match&query=protobuf&num=500&orderby=category&orderbyupdown=asc&search=Search&format=plaintext I had compiled all these ports againt protobuf 3.0.0 and found that two ports do not build sysutils/zbackup and net/ostinato. There is a puul request in for fixing this issue in sysutils/zbackup. I have submitted a bug to up ostinato, and waiting for a response as of the time of replying. I will be going through and testing the application I have listed above to see if they still work. Created attachment 175642 [details]
patch to make ostinato work with protobuf 3.1.0
Created attachment 175672 [details]
patch to make zbackup work with protobuf 3.1.0
As of right now The best way to move forward is to move to protobuf 3.1.0 testbuilds@work Hmm, 3.1.0 fails to build on 9.3a ? Any ideas ? (In reply to Kurt Jaeger from comment #10) gcc48 is needed to compile. and running "env LD_LIBRARY_PATH='/usr/local/lib/gcc48' CC=gcc48 CXX=g++48 ./configure" properly configures gcc48 to use its library. I have tried to add the above command to the Makefile and could not get it to work. env LD_LIBRARY_PATH='/usr/local/lib/gcc48' CC=gcc48 CXX=g++48 make is also needed comment #12 and comment #11 cause issues with compiling other ports on FreeBSD 9.3 that depend on protobuf 3.1.0. For FreeBSD 9.3 protobuf 3.1.0 should be compile with clang38. this can be accomplished by adding .if ${OSVERSION} >= 903000 && ${OSVERSION} < 1000000 CONFIGURE_ENV+= CC='clang38' \ CXX='clang++38' .endif to the Makefile. testbuilding with USES=compiler:c++14-lang @work testbuilding the depends: astro/libosmpbf astro/osmium astro/merkaartor audio/clementine-player audio/mumble audio/murmur audio/mixxx devel/pinba_engine devel/php5-pinba devel/tesla devel/py-protobuf devel/goprotobuf dns/powerdns games/cockatrice games/pokerth games/pink-pony japanese/mozc-server net/spoofer net/mosh net-im/ricochet net-p2p/zetacoin net-p2p/bitcoin net-p2p/litecoin net-p2p/dogecoin net-p2p/namecoin security/certificate-transparency Some failed builds on 9.3a, because of 9.3a: 93a: [03:20:10] ====>> Failed ports: devel/objecthash:build dns/powerdns:build games/ pokerth:build net-im/ricochet:build games/pink-pony:build audio/mixxx:build net/ mosh:build astro/libosmpbf:build net-p2p/litecoin:build audio/mumble:build devel /tesla:build [03:20:10] ====>> Skipped ports: security/certificate-transparency I prefer updating devel/protobuf to 3.1 and keep 2.x as devel/protobuf2 if necessary. Here is another request and port package for protobuf3. No difference for me at the moment if we make 3.1.0 a protobuf or protobuf3. Maybe keeping the protobuf up to date and legacy protobuf2 is a good idea :-) https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=214957 devel/protobuf is 3.1.0 since ports r428581. Are the patches here still relevant? |
Created attachment 175138 [details] git diff . Apparently it's simply a version bump. I needed it for chromium. Are there any ports which would brake with 3rd version?