From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jan 6 01:38:06 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DD96106566B; Tue, 6 Jan 2009 01:38:06 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from delphij@delphij.net) Received: from tarsier.delphij.net (delphij-pt.tunnel.tserv2.fmt.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f03:2c9::2]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 546B98FC13; Tue, 6 Jan 2009 01:38:05 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from delphij@delphij.net) Received: from tarsier.geekcn.org (tarsier.geekcn.org [211.166.10.233]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by tarsier.delphij.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 81D492848D; Tue, 6 Jan 2009 09:38:04 +0800 (CST) Received: from localhost (tarsier.geekcn.org [211.166.10.233]) by tarsier.geekcn.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CDCBEC438B; Tue, 6 Jan 2009 09:38:04 +0800 (CST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at geekcn.org Received: from tarsier.geekcn.org ([211.166.10.233]) by localhost (mail.geekcn.org [211.166.10.233]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id We0IoyIh8wgX; Tue, 6 Jan 2009 09:37:58 +0800 (CST) Received: from charlie.delphij.net (adsl-76-237-33-62.dsl.pltn13.sbcglobal.net [76.237.33.62]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by tarsier.geekcn.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D40F1EB8B39; Tue, 6 Jan 2009 09:37:56 +0800 (CST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=default; d=delphij.net; c=nofws; q=dns; h=message-id:date:from:reply-to:organization:user-agent: mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to: x-enigmail-version:openpgp:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=Lp0Ez4MPYfKCoVTjyI8XlRH7M1hYYUl12KvLgKTFMf1/HsKf9c7/uAPQ8+wPgS9fC OIiVSX7pdwqibCYG7Fgdw== Message-ID: <4962B5EE.3080401@delphij.net> Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:37:50 -0800 From: Xin LI Organization: The FreeBSD Project User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.18 (X11/20081125) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jan Henrik Sylvester References: <4962A362.9010304@janh.de> In-Reply-To: <4962A362.9010304@janh.de> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7 OpenPGP: id=18EDEBA0; url=http://www.delphij.net/delphij.asc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Xin Li , ports-list freebsd Subject: Re: OpenLDAP induced PORTREVISION bumps X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: d@delphij.net List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2009 01:38:06 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi, Jan Henrik Sylvester wrote: > I just face many large ports requiring updates, although mine depend on > openldap23-client, which have not been updated. Thus, I decided to > investigate changing openldap23-client to openldap24-client. > > According to 'libchk -v', only 10 of 29 of my ports bumped actually link > to one of the openldap libraries. (For example kdesdk3 does not link to > it.) Do I miss something? Why have all these ports been bumped? > > devel/gconf2 did not get bumped, although it automatically picks up the > dependency if openldap*-client is installed, which probably affects many > people. Why? Because it does not affect the default package? That's a good question. In practice we bump PORTREVISION by parsing the INDEX file which indicates the dependency relationship from package build environment. This way is effective if ports does not do things like devel/gconf2 which picks up dependencies that has been installed, as compared to doing 'grep WITH_LDAP */*/Makefile' or something similar, as dependencies can be represented in different ways. My (personal) opinion is that PORTREVISION should not be done at all and the task of rebuilding depending ports should be done by more automated tools, however currently our ports infrastructure is lacking of more finer grained dependency describing information store that can act as hint to port tools to make correct decisions :( > If I update openldap23-client to openldap24-client, is it advisable to > rebuild all packages depending on it (81) or just the 29 that got bumped > plus gconf2? (According to UPDATING, it probably should be all. > According to 'libchk -v', 10+1 should be enough.) Some ports tools can keep old shared libraries into /usr/local/lib/compat/; this way is likely to cause some problem in the future if you mix different versions so it's advisable to rebuild *all* packages that depends on it (81). Cheers, - -- Xin LI http://www.delphij.net/ FreeBSD - The Power to Serve! -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAklite0ACgkQi+vbBBjt66ClAACeIhsPUT8qGHVopcD0QoAJUAPZ a0IAoMEZ4xAIAbfZ6Rr+L76EkLpWFk3F =iXdM -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----