Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 13:38:07 +0100 (CET) From: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> To: tadayuki.okada@windriver.com 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: <200201241238.g0OCc8c20677@Magelan.Leidinger.net> In-Reply-To: <3C4EEEA8.AAB0300A@windriver.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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.
>> > 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."
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).
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."
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.
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.
> Unless we have other tool to do this, we should keep ports complient with
> these tools.
Mikhail's proposal doesn't break them.
Bye,
Alexander.
--
The dark ages were caused by the Y1K problem.
http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net
GPG fingerprint = C518 BC70 E67F 143F BE91 3365 79E2 9C60 B006 3FE7
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?200201241238.g0OCc8c20677>