Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 10:06:12 -0500 From: Tadayuki OKADA <tadayuki.okada@windriver.com> To: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@leidinger.net> Cc: tadayuki@mediaone.net, mi@aldan.algebra.com, will@csociety.org, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/graphics/gd Makefile pkg-comment Message-ID: <3C5022E4.4294D4F3@windriver.com> References: <200201241238.g0OCc8c20677@Magelan.Leidinger.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Alexander Leidinger wrote: > > On 23 Jan, Tadayuki OKADA wrote: > > >> > If you bump PORTREVISION, people can tell port A needs to be updated > >> > by pkg_version or portversion. > >> > >> Yes. But Mikhail doesn't talk about this. And it's possible with his > >> proposal too. We already have/generate dependency information in/for > >> the INDEX, so we just can use it to determine the ports which need an > >> PORTREVISION bump. > > Please send a patch or new utility which does this. > > It isn't common practice to bump the revision of dependand ports, see > below, so there isn't the need for such a tool at the moment. So you ignore Porter's Handbook? > >> > If you don't specify the lib version, port A build may not break, > >> > so you are likely to forget PORTREVISION bump. > >> > >> Yes. That's true. But this isn't common practice. The actual common > >> practice is to not increment the PORTREVISION if a library increments > >> its version number (and you've got an explanation why). > > Who said the actual common practice is not to bump PORTREVISION? > > Sorry, I wanted to say: "If portA depends on portB and portB got a > PORTREVISION increment, then it is not common practice to also increment > the PORTREVISION of portA." I've never said port A's PORTREVISION needs to be bumped when port B's *PORTREVISION* is bumped. Please check the context again. > At least I have _not_ seen a PORTREVISION bump on a lot of gnome* ports > at the time the library version of libpng changed (and I had to > recompile a lot of gnome* ports to get my custom widget background > back). You don't need to bump PORTREVISION if a port depends on a shlib indirectly. Assume the dependency is port A -> port B -> port C, then port C's shlib major version is increased, port B needs PORTREVISION bump, but as long as port B is binary compatible with the previous version, port A doesn't need PORTREVISION bump. I don't know about gnome case. Please ask sobomax if you think it's not bumping PORTREVISION correctly. And please read Porter's Handbook, it states when you need PORTREVISON bump. > And Mikhail's proposal is independend from this. It is not mutually > exclusive, so I don't see the problem you have with the proposal. > > >> And even if we decide to increment the PORTREVISION this isn't really a > >> strong argument as I already explained above. > > pkg_version is in the base system. portversion is part of portupgrade which > > is very popular tool these days. > > We don't have any tool other than these to detect which port to upgrade. > > Sorry, I wanted to say: "If we decide to accept Mikhail's proposal, we > have the possibility to determine which port needs a PORTREVISION bump > just by looking at the dependency information." That's a possibility. Not the current implementation. The proposal is incomplete without the utility side changes. > Makhail's proposal doesn't change any run time behavior. It only changes > the compile time behavior if there are outdated ports installed. This > doesn't affect official packages. As I said, it breaks user side update process. How does a user know when package A is rebuilt with updated package B which bumps shlib major version and may include critical bug fixes without port A's PORTREVISION bump? > The proposal is only benefical for a small part of the userbase, e.g. > for every ports commiter who knows what he does. "Joe User", which uses > official packages, is not affected. So you don't care about ports user? > > Unless we have other tool to do this, we should keep ports complient with > > these tools. > > Mikhail's proposal doesn't break them. Yes, it does. -- 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?3C5022E4.4294D4F3>