OpenBSD: ldconfig: unknown option -- n

[blueyed]

ldconfig on OpenBSD does not appear to have support for the "-n" option.

From GNU's ldconfig:

-n Process only the directories specified on the command line. Don't process the trusted directories, nor those specified in /etc/ld.so.conf. Implies -N.

For osx this appears to be handled already:

LuaJIT/Makefile

Lines 100 to 105 in f0e865d

	ifeq (Darwin,$(TARGET_SYS))
	INSTALL_SONAME= $(INSTALL_DYLIBNAME)
	INSTALL_SOSHORT1= $(INSTALL_DYLIBSHORT1)
	INSTALL_SOSHORT2= $(INSTALL_DYLIBSHORT2)
	LDCONFIG= :
	endif

Ref: neovim/neovim#10978 (comment)

[siddhesh]

Here's an untested patch. Can you please verify that it works? I don't have an OpenBSD system to test this:

moonjit@889b5a3

[blueyed]

Thanks.
I do not have a OpenBSD system myself, but could only test it on Neovim's CI.

I've wondered where that branch is based on though.. it does not appear to be master/v2.0/v2.1.

[siddhesh]

Thanks.
I do not have a OpenBSD system myself, but could only test it on Neovim's CI.

Cool, as long as you can confirm that it works somehow :)

I've wondered where that branch is based on though.. it does not appear to be master/v2.0/v2.1.

It's based off v2.1 but there's been quite a bit of progress over the last ~9 months so it won't look the same, although I've tried to keep the tree compatible merge-wise for now. This original tree has been dormant for a while now, so there needed to be some place to continue development...

[blueyed]

It's not trivial to test unfortunately - and I just assume that it works (similar to osx).
For reference, the build where it failed: https://builds.sr.ht/~jmk/job/88327#task-build-1114
I've looked into it again since I'd expected it to fail the build by itself already in the first place, but the code there is fine - only when it works it will create the symlinks. So it's better to continue, outputting the error though, instead of failing.

So please go ahead and merge the patch.

[siddhesh]

Done.

[blueyed]

Thanks!

It's based off v2.1 but there's been quite a bit of progress over the last ~9 months so it won't look the same, although I've tried to keep the tree compatible merge-wise for now. This original tree has been dormant for a while now, so there needed to be some place to continue development...

Are there plans to get this into v2.1 then, or 2.2 even?!

I wonder if it's ok/good for e.g. Neovim to go with 2.1 already? (neovim/neovim#10321)

[siddhesh]

Are there plans to get this into v2.1 then, or 2.2 even?!

I just pushed this patch into my v2.1 fix update branch. Note that I do not have rights to make changes in this repo.

I wonder if it's ok/good for e.g. Neovim to go with 2.1 already? (neovim/neovim#10321)

It should be ok. We have been using 2.1.0-beta3 (with all of my patches) in Fedora for a while now without any issues.