Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 11:17:10 -0400 From: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> To: Stanislav Sedov <ssedov@mbsd.msk.ru> Cc: Marcus von Appen <mva@sysfault.org>, sem@freebsd.org, sat@freebsd.org, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org, portmgr@freebsd.org, krion@freebsd.org Subject: Re: devel/sdl12 update and version bump Message-ID: <20060831151710.GC30325@xor.obsecurity.org> In-Reply-To: <20060831131822.35873652@localhost> References: <20060831085350.GA889@medusa.sysfault.org> <20060831131822.35873652@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--5QAgd0e35j3NYeGe Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Aug 31, 2006 at 01:18:22PM +0400, Stanislav Sedov wrote: > On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 10:53:50 +0200 > Marcus von Appen <mva@sysfault.org> mentioned: >=20 > > Hi, > >=20 > > I updated sdl12 to the latest stable version 1.2.11 on my system and > > thought, that it might be a good thing to incorporate the both related > > reports ports/99943 and ports/70900 (which can be closed then). > >=20 > > As both ports/70900 suggests, the patch matches the SDL version 1.2. So > > instead of using 'sdl11' and 'SDL11', ... one would use 'sdl12', > > 'SDL12', ... > >=20 > > According to a quick `find /usr/ports -type f |xargs grep "sdl11"` there > > are 37 ports with 42 files, which would need to be patched, > > http://www.sysfault.org/sdl12-patch.log > >=20 > > and around 400-500 ports would possibly need a version bump to chase the > > update (according to the usage of USE_SDL in /usr/ports). > >=20 > > Anyways, I personally dislike the sdl-config naming hack as it simply > > has no use anymore and is applied to a _stable_ version. Instead of > > using SDL12, sdl12-..., I would use the default. There is only one > > libSDL port available at the moment, libSDL 1.3 is still in development > > and I do not think, that the majority of applications will switch to > > libSDL 1.3 instantly when it is out. > >=20 > > Thus I'd vote to make the critical jump, drop the renaming for > > devel/sdl12 and fix up all related ports. If a devel/sdl13 port is about > > to be committed, we can rename it, wait for the majority of ports to be > > usable with it and then drop (if no longer needed) sdl12 completely or > > change it back to sdl12-... or whatever else. > >=20 > > Another possible solutions would be symlinks to the current stable and > > favourized sdl version, which match the SDL defaults. > > It also would ease a lot for developers as they would not have to care > > about the FreeBSD specific renaming scheme. > >=20 > > So before I submit another pr for sdl12 which is rejected, I'd like to > > hear, whether the patch for 1.2.11 (or the 1.2 branch in general) should > > use=20 > >=20 > > a) SDL12 sdl12-config, sdl12.pc... (logical fix for FreeBSD renaming > > b) SDL11 sdl11-config, sdl11.pc... (current default) > > c) SDL, sdl-config, sdl.pc (SDL default) > > d) ln -s (symlinks to the renamed stuff to > > ease life for developers and porte= rs) > >=20 > > I am not subscribed to freebsd-ports, so please put me into the CC when > > you answer to the list. > >=20 >=20 > Hi! >=20 > We are already working on upgrading sdl12 with sem@ and sat@ and almost > all patches already available. We decided to eliminate this stupid=20 > sdl11 renaming scheme and use stock sdl naming politics. This will > simplify the process of sdl-dependent creations greatly. > Unfortunately, there are over 500 sdl dependent ports currently, and > before commit we should ensure all of them builds Ok. >=20 > So don't send another sdl PR, if you want to help you can write to > me, sem@ or sat@. Help is always needed. >=20 > BTW, all sdl_* ports should be upgraded as well as there was little > API breakage at 1.2.10 AFAIK. >=20 > Thanks for your work! Thanks, let us know when you have something ready for testing, although it will probably have to wait until after the 6.2 release cycle. Kris --5QAgd0e35j3NYeGe Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFE9v12Wry0BWjoQKURAv7VAKCvLgCHWtL3NwDVsKTeDjocRmjAsACgsFjH EGE8mPyz2XYMNOa7a4ChM6w= =VIPp -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --5QAgd0e35j3NYeGe--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060831151710.GC30325>