alpine @2.23: error: implicit declaration of function 'time' is invalid in C99

[fcorrao1 (Frank Corrao)]

"sudo port install alpine" failed to build due to missing header includes

:info:build `cat CCTYPE` -c `cat CFLAGS` dummy.c
:info:build dummy.c:615:28: error: implicit declaration of function 'time' is invalid in C99 [-Werror,-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
:info:build     stream->uid_validity = time (0);
:info:build                            ^
:info:build dummy.c:615:28: note: did you mean 'utime'?
:info:build /Library/Developer/CommandLineTools/SDKs/MacOSX11.0.sdk/usr/include/utime.h:72:5: note: 'utime' declared here
:info:build int utime(const char *, const struct utimbuf *);
:info:build     ^
:info:build dummy.c:640:7: error: implicit declaration of function 'time' is invalid in C99 [-Werror,-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
:info:build   if (time (0) >=               /* time to do another test? */
:info:build       ^
:info:build dummy.c:726:23: warning: unsequenced modification and access to 'ts' [-Wunsequenced]
:info:build     if (!ts && !(*(ts = default_proto (NIL))->dtb->create) (ts,"INBOX"))
:info:build                       ^                                     ~~
:info:build 1 warning and 2 errors generated.
:info:build make[4]: *** [dummy.o] Error 1

[jcvernaleo (John C. Vernaleo)]

Does anyone currently have access to bigsur to test/fix this? I don't currently have any systems running it yet (and nothing I can upgrade at this moment).

[snowflake (Dave Evans)]

@jcvernaleo

I have Big Sur 11.1 and CLT 12.2. If you create a repository at Github containing just your Portfile and your patches following Macports conventions I will be happy to build it on Big Sur and submit the logs back to you as a pull request.

[jcvernaleo (John C. Vernaleo)]

Hmmm, so I took a look and it looks like alpine in homebrew builds on big sur (at least they claim to support it). Main thing is that they are using 2.24 (vs our 2.23). We should probably update first rather then spend time trying to get this one to compile.

[jerryyhom]

Upstream is aware of the compile error and next release should have fix. If next release is unreasonably long, then we could make a patch. But I think waiting for next release is more prudent.

[jcvernaleo (John C. Vernaleo)]

100% agree. Unless timing is unreasonable, sticking with mostly unpatched upstream is the best way to go.