Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 18:03:27 -0500 From: "Jeremy Messenger" <mezz7@cox.net> To: "Mikhail Teterin" <Mikhail.Teterin@murex.com> Cc: gnome@freebsd.org Subject: Re: editors/abiword-devel -- 2.3.2 is now available Message-ID: <op.stvjn1zz9aq2h7@mezz.mezzweb.com> In-Reply-To: <200507131851.54794.Mikhail.Teterin@murex.com> References: <200507130346.j6D3keOm019090@blue.virtual-estates.net> <200507131810.29307.Mikhail.Teterin@murex.com> <op.stvhuqjt9aq2h7@mezz.mezzweb.com> <200507131851.54794.Mikhail.Teterin@murex.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 17:51:54 -0500, Mikhail Teterin <Mikhail.Teterin@murex.com> wrote: > середа 13 липень 2005 18:24, Jeremy Messenger Ви написали: >> grep for 'png' isn't good enough, 'png.5' is bettter. What make you >> think >> everybody have the INDEX? I don't have any here. > > Try ``cd /usr/ports; make fetchindex''... No. I don't need it. >> > So, there is no advantage in keeping the shared library numbers there, >> > but there is a significant disadvantage -- the users are required >> > to upgrade all changed dependencies, whenever they want to build >> abiword. >> >> I am expecting them to. People that keep old stuff and build new source >> >> that depend on old stuff cause a lot of problems, so force the habit of >> it >> to upgrade all new dependencies before you install anything new in port >> is good. > > X Window developers famously went through a similar debate in their > times -- > decades ago. The prevailed point of view was to provide MECHANISM, NOT > POLICY. I urge you to recognize this point's wisdom. > > Your idea is impractical too. Say I just built/installed the KDE suite. > The > next day I updated the ports tree and the graphics/png got updated (and > so, > duly, did abiword). Do you think, it is right to demand, that I rebuild > the > whole KDE again (all the way up from Qt) in order to be able to add > abiword > to my perfectly functional system? > > Nobody does that and nobody should be forced to. AbiWord surely does not > care > -- as long as png.h matches the libpng.so, it will be just fine. > >> Check in bsd.*.mk and other ports. They all do the same things on >> different libraries. > > I was referring to my having to explain the impossibility of ABI > incompatibilities, as long as headers match the libraries. > > But yes, I know. There is no rational explanation for this (you are not > offering one either) -- just inertia... There are plenty of > counter-examples > too, however: > > find /usr/ports/ -name Makefile | xargs fgrep LIB_DEPENDS | fgrep -v . I talked with three peoples in IRC, they all prefer to make all of the lib versions fully-qualified to help with PORTREVISION bumps. They said that this isn't a big deal. Therefore, AbiWord's Makefile (LIB_DEPENDS part) stays same way as it is. Oh btw, marcus said that "We have no mandate either way, and it's the discretion of the porter." Cheers, Mezz > Yours, > > -mi -- mezz7@cox.net - mezz@FreeBSD.org FreeBSD GNOME Team http://www.FreeBSD.org/gnome/ - gnome@FreeBSD.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?op.stvjn1zz9aq2h7>