migrate sdl to sdl12-compat

[cho-m]

• Have you followed the guidelines for contributing?
• Have you ensured that your commits follow the commit style guide?
• Have you checked that there aren't other open pull requests for the same formula update/change?
• Have you built your formula locally with brew install --build-from-source <formula>, where <formula> is the name of the formula you're submitting?
• Is your test running fine brew test <formula>, where <formula> is the name of the formula you're submitting?
• Does your build pass brew audit --strict <formula> (after doing brew install --build-from-source <formula>)? If this is a new formula, does it pass brew audit --new <formula>?

---

Probably need to plan modification of conflicts with between sdl and sdl12-compat to avoid issues when upgrading.

[carlocab]

Probably need to plan modification of conflicts with between sdl and sdl12-compat to avoid issues when upgrading.

1. Make sdl keg-only
2. Add link_overwrite to sdl12-compat

[cho-m]

A couple failures since sdl-config uses its own prefix in sdl12-compat while the HOMEBREW_PREFIX is used by sdl, i.e.

$ /usr/local/opt/sdl/bin/sdl-config --cflags
-I/usr/local/include/SDL -D_GNU_SOURCE=1 -D_THREAD_SAFE

$ /usr/local/opt/sdl12-compat/bin/sdl-config --cflags
-I/usr/local/Cellar/sdl12-compat/1.2.56/include/SDL -D_THREAD_SAFE

EDIT: This may mean sdl won't behave correctly if made keg-only.

[cho-m]

This may break some users' usage of sdl, but changing formula to keg-only means using HOMEBREW_PREFIX would be broken without a manual brew link --force. Anyway, formula can be disable'd right after this PR.

[Bo98]

We could just fully get rid of sdl formula and merge it into sdl12-compat.

That was actually my initial ambition but I was waiting for a release to come out with bug fixes, which it now has.

This would bypass the whole 3 month deprecation period and a scenario where brew install sdl is a bit broken from being keg-only. Renaming should work nicely given it should be an almost identical install tree. Even the version number is specially crafted to appear like a SDL 1.2 patch update.

[cho-m]

So delete sdl.rb and add "sdl": "sdl12-compat" to renames?

[Bo98]

I think so, yeah. Might be worth comparing the install trees first and addressing any differences.

[cho-m]

Ignoring man pages and some libexec files in sdl, the main differences are:

• we no longer have static library libSDL.a (given that sdl12-compat only supports building this on Linux, don't have any choice here)
• on Linux, fully versioned dynamic library is different
  • sdl uses libSDL-1.2.so.0.11.4 vs sdl12-compat uses libSDL-1.2.so.1.2.56
  • latter is a bit odd since libSDL-1.2.so.0 is symlinked to it, but this allows drop-in as long as package links to this name.
  • but could be seen as "upgrade" and users should rebuild with newer library for broken linkage if they didn't link to lib/libSDL-1.2.so.0.

[cho-m]

Probably need a syntax-only PR due to audit.

May need to look into dependents on whether we can avoid revision bumps.

[Bo98]

• but could be seen as "upgrade" and users should rebuild with newer library for broken linkage if they didn't link to lib/libSDL-1.2.so.0.

If you are linking to a fully versioned libraries you're signing up for regular rebuilds (no one, for example, should be linking to libstdc++.so.6.0.30). This isn't anything to be concerned about.

The lack of a static library is odd, but we've shipped bigger breaking changes so should be fine.

Probably need a syntax-only PR due to audit.

For the two disabled formulae? Yeah that's probably fine.

I'd be cautious about everything else. Will require testing out how everything is currently linked to SDL. In theory though, yes it is designed to work as a drop-in replacement without needing a rebuild.

[cho-m]

May want to ignore sdl_sound flat namespace audit failure and fix separately if only issue.

Will note that none of patches look like they will apply and autoreconf will fail without creating AUTHORS/etc files.

[carlocab]

May want to ignore sdl_sound flat namespace audit failure and fix separately if only issue.

Will note that none of patches look like they will apply and autoreconf will fail without creating AUTHORS/etc files.

I'm ok to add this to the allowlist if needed.

[cho-m]

Linux failures. Haven't checked yet if any are from changes here vs GCC/etc migrations

Error: 8 failed steps!
brew install --verbose --build-bottle nuvie
brew install --verbose --build-bottle pce
brew install --verbose --build-bottle pmdmini
brew install --verbose --build-bottle qdae
brew install --verbose --build-bottle supermodel
brew install --verbose --build-bottle sz81
brew install --verbose --build-bottle vecx
brew install --verbose --build-bottle xrick
Error: Process completed with exit code 1.

[carlocab]

Linux failures. Haven't checked yet if any are from changes here vs GCC/etc migrations

Let's find out: https://github.com/carlocab/workflow-test/actions/runs/3089013194

[cho-m]

Let's find out: https://github.com/carlocab/workflow-test/actions/runs/3089013194

They all failed, so probably GCC-11 and other changes rather than sdl.

[cho-m]

Are we okay with merging with current failures and fixing those afterward?

macOS:

• sdl_sound

Linux:

• nuvie -- nuvie: fix build with GCC 11 #111475
• pce -- pce: fix build with GCC 11 and use sdl2 on HEAD #111476
• sz81 -- sz81: fix build with GCC 11 #111478
• xrick -- xrick: fix build with GCC 11 #111477
• qdae -- qdae: fix build with glibc 2.35 and deprecate #111515
• vecx -- vecx: fix build with GCC 11 #111514
• pmdmini -- Can migrate to sdl2 if we retry pmdmini 2.0.0 #106629
• supermodel --

[carlocab]

Ok by me to fix forward.

[BrewTestBot]

@SMillerDev has triggered a merge.

[BrewTestBot]

⚠️ @SMillerDev bottle publish failed.

bottle publish failed

[carlocab]

Needs --no-autosquash

[BrewTestBot]

@SMillerDev has triggered a merge.