audio/cava: Update to 0.10.0

[jbo]

Summary

Important upstream changes since last port version:

• OSS input backend and general improved FreeBSD support
• OSS default in FreeBSD
• sndio highest priority after OSS
• added sdl output support
• added glsl shader output support

Port update changes:

• delete all patches (obsolete)
• update pkg-descr, Makefile COMMENT and WWW entry
• add port options for input/output backends (all enabled by default)
• remove unneeded INSTALL_TARGET stanza (strip is executed by default)
• remove cava.fnt build from Makefile (CAVA build creates font now)

PR: 276228
Approved by: Adam Jimerson <[e-mail]> (maintainer)

[zirias]

audio/cava/Makefile

21

As we have both ALSA and pipewire in ports and they weren't discussed in the PR: Do they break? Or why are they unconditionally disabled?

38

Why not use the ${opt}_CONFIGURE_ENABLE (here and throughout)? It would make sure to always *explicitly* either enable or disable the feature, which should also prevent "automagic" dependencies when building in some unclean environment.

73

Not sure whether it's worth guarding this CFLAG (that just disables a hard -werror) at all, but at least this can probably be simplified a bit now that 14 is released. (BTW: Check done whether it was solved upstream?)

[jbo]

audio/cava/Makefile

21

ALSA was already not supported by the port prior to this update.
Pipewire support didn't exist in upstream until 0.9.0.

Is the idea that when a submitter provides a port update they have add all the features that upstream supports to the port even if they were already not supported prior to their port update submission?

38

Good point - I'll get that fixed!

73

I had a look at upstream's changelog and didn't spot anything directly relevant. I will check the individual commits and do test builds :)

[zirias]

audio/cava/Makefile

21

No, at least AFAIK there's no obligation to do so. Still it's a common practice if the new upstream feature isn't for some reason incompatible with (or broken on) FreeBSD. And after all, this port update *does* add support for new upstream features, so, why not this one?

After reading the discussion in the PR, I just wonder whether the reason to leave it out was "opinionated" as well (and maybe, the same was already true for ALSA?)

Bottom line: I'd probably check this. But you don't *have* to.

[jbo]

The requested changes will be provided as part of a new revision as upstream updated to 0.10.1 in the meantime.