Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 12:32:00 -0500 From: Tadayuki OKADA <tadayuki.okada@windriver.com> To: Mikhail Teterin <mi@aldan.algebra.com> Cc: tadayuki@mediaone.net, will@csociety.org, ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/graphics/gd Makefile pkg-comment Message-ID: <3C4EF390.3CD61EE4@windriver.com> References: <200201230453.g0N4rEQ67571@aldan.algebra.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi, Mikhail Teterin wrote: > On 21 Jan, Tadayuki OKADA wrote: > > 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. > > Well, what I changed only affects the situation, when port A is built > after port B: > > An earlier version of port B is already present and port A is known to > work fine with it. So it detects the acceptable version of the libB and > compiles/links with it. I don't think my idea affects the way upgrades > are handled. 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. And think about the situation: port B update which includes critical bug fixes. But port A is still using old version of library... > > BTW, come to think of it, the whole *_DEPENDS system should, probably, > be changed to look for the file/library in the +CONTENTS files under > /var/db/pkg... I agree that ports system needs to be refined. But until then we should keep the rule suitable for current system. 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?3C4EF390.3CD61EE4>