From owner-cvs-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Feb 19 17:56:49 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 801511065670; Sun, 19 Feb 2012 17:56:49 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from sahil@tandon.net) Received: from cricket.hamla.org (cricket.hamla.org [206.251.255.31]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F91F8FC0A; Sun, 19 Feb 2012 17:56:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from magic.hamla.org (cpe-68-174-92-20.nyc.res.rr.com [68.174.92.20]) by cricket.hamla.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 582538A054; Sun, 19 Feb 2012 12:56:48 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2012 12:56:45 -0500 From: Sahil Tandon To: Alexey Dokuchaev Message-ID: <20120219175645.GA6833@magic.hamla.org> References: <201202182356.q1INuU7V061378@repoman.freebsd.org> <20120219060053.GA45762@FreeBSD.org> <20120219150943.GA6673@magic.hamla.org> <20120219164528.GA48166@FreeBSD.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120219164528.GA48166@FreeBSD.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.97.3 at cricket.hamla.org X-Virus-Status: Clean Cc: cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org, Eitan Adler , cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, ports-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/devel/adime Makefile ports/x11-wm/icewm Makefile ports/graphics/scr2png Makefile ports/x11/xbindkeys Makefile X-BeenThere: cvs-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org List-Id: CVS commit messages for the ports tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2012 17:56:49 -0000 On Sun, 2012-02-19 at 16:45:28 +0000, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: > On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 10:09:44AM -0500, Sahil Tandon wrote: > > Alexey, I appreciate your perspective on this, but I want to make > > sure you are aware of the related discussion (and opposing > > viewpoints) on freebsd-ports: > > Yes, I've heard that reasoning a number of times since I started to > hack on ports, which is a relatively long period. Your long hacking tenure aside, I am just glad to know you are aware of other reasonable opinions on this topic. > Technically, since there is no supporting infrastructure to ensure if > some app really requires particular shlib version or not (and I > personally do not see how it can be implemented automatically for any > arbitrary port out there), the whole issue right now is little more > than a matter of personal preference. Emphasis on 'personal preference'. > ... > Bottom line: unless we have reliably working solution to ensure if a > port really wants a particular ABI or not, it's better to be on the > safe side. Thanks for your opinion. -- Sahil Tandon