Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2007 11:59:19 +0200 From: Pav Lucistnik <pav@FreeBSD.org> To: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> Cc: gnome@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ports/115870: [DEPS] graphics/cairo reduce X dependencies Message-ID: <1188899959.28297.148.camel@pav.hide.vol.cz> In-Reply-To: <20070904114601.48f36f42@deskjail> References: <200709032101.l83L1qr1018167@freefall.freebsd.org> <20070904000756.756b72fc@deskjail> <1188894171.28297.82.camel@pav.hide.vol.cz> <20070904111144.6c3fb68c@deskjail> <1188897490.28297.129.camel@pav.hide.vol.cz> <20070904114601.48f36f42@deskjail>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--=-dTk08fT9aMpm8aHGI675
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO8859-2
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Alexander Leidinger p=ED=B9e v =FAt 04. 09. 2007 v 11:46 +0200:
> Quoting Pav Lucistnik <pav@FreeBSD.org> (Tue, 04 Sep 2007 11:18:10 +0200)=
:
>=20
> > Alexander Leidinger p=ED=B9e v =FAt 04. 09. 2007 v 11:11 +0200:
> >=20
> > > > What do you mean by 'explicit' depends? I don't want to list every
> > > > single each lib in every single each port, when I can rely on indir=
ect
> > > > dependencies via ports like gtk20.
> > >=20
> > > Explicit dependencies makes it more easy to just rebuild those ports
> > > which use a specific lib which just had an ABI change. Our users want
> > > this.=20
> >=20
> > Ah, this nonsense again.
>=20
> Please explain why.
You are adding a massive overhead on a day-to-day operation, like
calculating a dependency list, to solve a problem that only appears few
times a year. Did you any benchmarks on what happens if you replace,
say, gtk20 with it's explicit dependencies, is all ports that define
USE_GNOME=3Dgtk20?
Also, the new world order is lot less intuitive and transparent to the
porter. Hard to spot mistakes and ommissions will be made.
Thirdly, what happens if, say, gtk20 grows a dependency on a new X
library? You will go and add it to all the thousands of individual
ports?
> Would you please provide technical details why you are opposed to lift
> the Ports Collection to a higher feature/quality level?
I don't think this moves the ports to a higher quality level, quite the
opposite.
You are basically committing to do a lot of tedious manual work, which
is currently done by the framework, just because you think you can do
that job marginally better.
I don't buy that.
Your claws example can be solved by only bumping ports that
build_depends on python on next python upgrade.
--=20
Pav Lucistnik <pav@oook.cz>
<pav@FreeBSD.org>
In God we trust. All others must use the callback verifier.
--=-dTk08fT9aMpm8aHGI675
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: Toto je =?UTF-8?Q?digit=C3=A1ln=C4=9B?=
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?_podepsan=E1?= =?UTF-8?Q?_=C4=8D=C3=A1st?=
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?_zpr=E1vy?=
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (FreeBSD)
iD8DBQBG3Sx3ntdYP8FOsoIRAvtNAKCNfmw4FzHJLbrc8NyNJA+HjFs5gACgtIYb
3CLbArup5/UuEupnFnAwv6I=
=kxGc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--=-dTk08fT9aMpm8aHGI675--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1188899959.28297.148.camel>