Date: Mon, 07 May 2007 18:34:36 -0400 From: Joe Marcus Clarke <marcus@marcuscom.com> To: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Cc: ports@freebsd.org, Jeremy Messenger <mezz7@cox.net>, Doug Barton <dougb@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: HEADS UP: xorg upgrade plans Message-ID: <1178577276.94597.49.camel@shumai.marcuscom.com> In-Reply-To: <20070507222645.GB57768@xor.obsecurity.org> References: <20070502193159.GB42482@xor.obsecurity.org> <463F7236.4080108@FreeBSD.org> <20070507184231.GA50639@xor.obsecurity.org> <op.try3lgvv9aq2h7@mezz.mezzweb.com> <20070507201448.GA52651@xor.obsecurity.org> <op.try4tyhd9aq2h7@mezz.mezzweb.com> <20070507204414.GA53358@xor.obsecurity.org> <op.try8u2jj9aq2h7@mezz.mezzweb.com> <20070507222645.GB57768@xor.obsecurity.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--=-jafi7Fo5h8/ISxNouLlt Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, 2007-05-07 at 18:26 -0400, Kris Kennaway wrote: > > >>>I dispute the correctness of this entry. The old libraries in > > >>>lib/compat/pkg are not linked to directly by new builds. The only > > >>>situation in which something might end up being linked to 2 versions > > >>>of the library is if it pulls in a library dependency from an existi= ng > > >>>port that is still linked to the old library. In this situation the > > >>>build would be broken with or without lib/compat/pkg (in the latter > > >>>case, you have an installed port linked to a library that is entirel= y > > >>>missing, so that port will be nonfunctional). > > >>> > > >>>Kris > > > > > >I guess your silence means you agree with me here :) > >=20 > > Yeah, I guess and unsure at the same time since I didn't write this ent= ry. =20 > > :-) >=20 > OK. I didn't write it either, but it holds some truth. Yes, not having the library at all would cause a build failure, but having multiple versions of the same library can lead to runtime failures. It's much easier to troubleshoot a missing .so that it is to hunt down strange runtime failures (usually). I'm not arguing for or against portmaster, or the "keeping old shared objects" functionality. I'm just putting this FAQ entry in context. Yes, perhaps it could be re-worded for clarity. Joe --=20 PGP Key : http://www.marcuscom.com/pgp.asc --=-jafi7Fo5h8/ISxNouLlt Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQBGP6l6b2iPiv4Uz4cRAh3AAJ41bP4uJqUXBmc3LMYIDX+DZKV90wCgoGAk AFCqzQ/LUhgkZS2y9vBPGXI= =zE5q -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-jafi7Fo5h8/ISxNouLlt--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1178577276.94597.49.camel>