Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 19:40:10 -0500 From: Alan Eldridge <alane@geeksrus.net> To: FreeBSD Ports List <ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Proposal: building a separate set of bento packages for XF86-4 Message-ID: <20020208004010.GA98905@wwweasel.geeksrus.net>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I don't know what else besides xpm and Mesa cause problems, but based just on those 2, there are 74 ports that USE_MESA and 303 that USE_XPM. Xpm produces packages that are binary incompatible. The programs and libraries themselves are not, but the *packaging* is, since it directs pkg_add to install xpm, which overwrites files present in XF86-4-clients and XF86-4-libraries. Providing an empty xpm package would solve this problem, at the expense of pkg db accuracy. Mesa is just binary incompatible, period. XF86-4-libraries provides the libGL.so* etc files for XF86-4, while Mesa provides them for XF86-3. So there's the file overwriting problem again. But just providing a separate Mesa package for XF86-4 isn't enough: programs linked to Mesa for XF86-3 won't run if Mesa for XF86-4 is installed, because of a difference in the shared lib versions for libGL.so and friends. The Mesa issue extends to SDL, and to QT. I'd guess it also affects Gnome similarly. The shared lib version number problem may be transitive, I haven't checked how much of the run-time linking dependencies are stored in the .so and executable files yet. As more and more people move to XF86-4, providing hundreds of prebuilt packages that won't work correctly for them is starting to look like a bad thing, especially because there's no warning anywhere that this is the case. -- Alan Eldridge "Dave's not here, man." 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?20020208004010.GA98905>