Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 19:43:11 -0500 From: Tadayuki OKADA <tadayuki@mediaone.net> To: Mikhail Teterin <mi@aldan.algebra.com> Cc: tadayuki.okada@windriver.com, will@csociety.org, ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/graphics/gd Makefile pkg-comment Message-ID: <20020123194311.0a620a5a.tadayuki@mediaone.net> In-Reply-To: <200201232231.g0NMVuQ77729@aldan.algebra.com> References: <3C4EF390.3CD61EE4@windriver.com> <200201232231.g0NMVuQ77729@aldan.algebra.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 23 Jan 2002 17:31:53 -0500 (EST) Mikhail Teterin <mi@aldan.algebra.com> wrote: > On 23 Jan, Tadayuki OKADA wrote: > > You can't assume people keep old version as it was. portupgrade leave > > old version of shared libraries by default, but there is a option to > > remove them. > > Then things may break for them with the current scheme too... The change > I'm advocating affects only the building of port A. If the acceptable > library of port B is present, it will build. Sorry, but you mistook what I said. I said: > I meant: > If port A depends on port B's library. > port B updated. Assume it breaks binary compatibility. > port A build will not be broken, so forget PORTREVISION bump. > People update port B, but not port A. so port A will stop working. The situation is: port A was built with previous version of port B. Then port B is updated. pkg_version or portversion detect new version of port B. So peolple update port B. But port A will not be detected, because PORTREVISON is same. > > The dependency tracking is quite broken anyway already -- the newly > built port A is registered as dependent on the latest version of port B > -- not the actually installed version (which may be outdated, be of > language specific flavor, or compiled with non-default options, etc.). > > > And think about the situation: port B update which includes critical > > bug fixes. But port A is still using old version of library... > > Again... Sorry for the evident confusion. My proposal does not modify > the dependency tracking (not significantly, anyway). When registering > the port A, the latest version of port B will be recorded (rather > bogusly, see above) -- just as now. The idea seemply allows to relax the > dependency requirements for those, who build the ports from source. This doesn't solve the situation what I described. PORTREVISION bump is needed. Regards, -- Tadayuki OKADA To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020123194311.0a620a5a.tadayuki>