archivers/brotli: Update to 0.6.0

[brnrd]

Summary

archivers/brotli: Update to 0.6.0

 - Update brotli to 0.6.0
 - Move from devel/libbrotli
 - No longer requires the meta project
 - Switch from autoconf to cmake
 - Fix nginx brotli module

PR: 218851
Submitted by:  Markus Kohlmeyer <[e-mail]>
Reviewed_by:
Approved by:
Differential_Revision

[brnrd]

Allow static build as well

From: https://bz-attachments.freebsd.org/attachment.cgi?id=182113

[brnrd]

Add libbrotli*.so.0 symlinks

As per request in https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218851#c2

[mat]

archivers/brotli/Makefile

6 ↗

(On Diff #29904)

PORTEPOCH.

15 ↗

(On Diff #29904)

DISTVERSIONPREFIX.

24 ↗

(On Diff #29904)

Having a static option enabling static libs, ok, why not, but disabling the shared libs, no. Unless you provide a slave port that installs the static libs.

[i.dani_outlook.com]

@mat See inline comment

archivers/brotli/Makefile

24 ↗

(On Diff #29904)

I think this is a problem of brotli itself - it's not possible to have both types of libraries. See:
https://github.com/google/brotli/issues/542
and
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218851#c9

[mat]

archivers/brotli/Makefile

24 ↗

(On Diff #29904)

Then create a archivers/brotli-static with and use OPTIONS_EXCLUDE=STATIC/OPTIONS_SLAVE=STATIC

[mat]

archivers/brotli/Makefile

24 ↗

(On Diff #29904)

Or just do not provide an option to get static libs, nobody should ever be using them.

[brnrd]

Set PORTEPOCH

Even though we're moving to a different name, we're going
back in version 1.0 -> 0.6.0

[brnrd]

archivers/brotli/Makefile

24 ↗

(On Diff #29904)

Agree. This was on request of osa@ (see PR). Gone now.
Behavior of brotli cmake is also questionable, it is either or, not both. (if you only disable DYNAMIC, you don't get static either but still dynamic)

[brnrd]

Remove STATIC option as per portmgr request

[mat]

Looks good, now all you have to do is get maintainer approval.

[i.dani_outlook.com]

Successfully built and installed on FBSD103, together with Apache 2.4.26.

[brnrd]

Add patch for nginx

• Update nginx brotli module

As far as I can tell nginx is the only user of devel/libbrotli

[brnrd]

Fix patch for nginx

[brnrd]

Add archivers/brotli-static port and www/nginx-devel update

• Add static port on maintainers request
• Update nginx-devel port brotli module

[brnrd]

Really add archivers/brotli-static

[brnrd]

In D11290#234665, @brnrd wrote:

Add archivers/brotli-static port and www/nginx-devel update

• Add static port on maintainers request
• Update nginx-devel port brotli module

The only other dependency I've found is in mail/cyrus-imapd30 where it is commented out, with the new archivers/brotli this builds fine

-# Our libbrotli is too old
-#HTTP_LIB_DEPENDS+=    libbrotlidec.so:devel/libbrotli
+HTTP_LIB_DEPENDS+=     libbrotlicommon.so:archivers/brotli

[mat]

archivers/brotli-static/Makefile

10 ↗

(On Diff #30026)

So, this conflicts with itself, nice.

archivers/brotli/Makefile

19 ↗

(On Diff #30026)

So, mmm, this has OPTIONS_EXCLUDE=STATIC and OPTIONS_SLAVE=STATIC, I figure this is undefined behavior.

[rootservice_gmail.com]

Do we realy need the static build?

[brnrd]

Update STATIC options and conflicts

[brnrd]

archivers/brotli-static/Makefile

10 ↗

(On Diff #30026)

That was pretty stupid indeed!

archivers/brotli/Makefile

19 ↗

(On Diff #30026)

It was my impression that this was how it works, _EXCLUDE in master- and _SLAVE in slave-port.
Noticed there's no documentation in porter's handbook.

[mat]

Could you not rewrite other port's Makefiles ? most of nginx-devel should not be in here.

[brnrd]

Remove nginx patches

[mat]

Also, is there any need for the static stuff ? Using static libraries is a pain in the ports tree. Also ELF has been here for 20 years, nobody should be using or providing static libs, ever.

archivers/brotli-static/Makefile

10 ↗

(On Diff #30576)

Simply write:

CONFLICTS_INSTALL= brotli

archivers/brotli/Makefile

15 ↗

(On Diff #30576)

This should be ?=, and also only brotli-static.

20 ↗

(On Diff #30576)

So one can ask the brotli port to build as STATIC, this is not really great. Maybe simply drop options and use a .if defined(STATIC_ONLY) / .else

[brnrd]

Committed only the shared-lib version.
Maintainer of the port (who requested static option) didn't provide feedback (via mail)

[mat]

Also, you forgot to commit fixes for ports that depend on this.

[mat]

(thus breaking them)