Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 12:11:04 -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-ports@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/graphics/gd Makefile pkg-comment Message-ID: <3C4EEEA8.AAB0300A@windriver.com> References: <200201231608.g0NG8qa05110@Magelan.Leidinger.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[moved to freebsd-ports] Alexander Leidinger wrote: > On 23 Jan, Tadayuki OKADA wrote: > > I think you missed the point. I'm talking about the case updated port B > > breaks binary compatibility with the previous version. > > In that case, 'ldd' is likely to cause troubles. > > And shared library's major version change usually means 'incompatibility' > > ABI incompatibility, but not always API incompatibility. Yes, I meant that. > >> Mikhail's proposal doesn't change the _run_ time behavior compared to > >> the actual approach. His proposal changes the _build_ time behavior. > > port A needs to be rebuit, when port B breaks binary compatibility. > > Yes, with an emphasis on 'binary'. > > > 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. > > 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? > 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. Unless we have other tool to do this, we should keep ports complient with these tools. 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?3C4EEEA8.AAB0300A>