From owner-freebsd-arch Tue Jul 9 14:10:23 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 775C937B400 for ; Tue, 9 Jul 2002 14:10:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from postfix2-1.free.fr (postfix2-1.free.fr [213.228.0.9]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAF8243E64 for ; Tue, 9 Jul 2002 14:10:20 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from rsidd@lpt.ens.fr) Received: from bluerondo.a.la.turk (nas-cbv-6-62-147-150-98.dial.proxad.net [62.147.150.98]) by postfix2-1.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53FA03CA for ; Tue, 9 Jul 2002 23:10:19 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 280 invoked by uid 1001); 9 Jul 2002 21:09:12 -0000 Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 23:09:12 +0200 From: Rahul Siddharthan To: Simon Marlow Cc: John Baldwin , arch@freebsd.org, Dan Nelson Subject: Re: Cleaning old packages (was: Package system flaws?) Message-ID: <20020709210911.GA248@lpt.ens.fr> References: <20020709161953.GA69779@lpt.ens.fr> <20020709171417.GA69932@lpt.ens.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.27i X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 4.6-PRERELEASE i386 Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Simon Marlow said on Jul 9, 2002 at 21:10:07: > Rahul Siddharthan writes: > > > That seems rather ambitious, and too drastic a change, to me. What > > I'd like to see is probably more like, the gfoo port needs gtk+ 1.2.6 > > or above, but not gtk+ 2.0 and above (incompatible) and not gtk+ 1.2.5 > > or below (buggy). There should be some way to specify this in the > > makefile of the port, so that any port-management program like > > portupgrade can make use of the information. > > A port can't know which versions of a library it will be compatible > with ahead of time. Only the port itself knows which older versions > of itself are compatible with the current version, so the information > about whether an upgrade is safe or not should reside in the port > which is being upgraded. OK, these are two different problems I think. My problem is, is it *necessary* to upgrade the gtk+ port (from the point of view of gfoo); and your problem is, is it *safe* to do so. In principle, any of the four possibilities could exist; to take libpng as an example: neither safe nor necessary (this was true of a very large number of ports which depended on libpng, during the 1.0 -> 1.2 transition) safe but not necessary (usually, upgrading through minor versions, like libpng 1.2.2 -> 1.2.3) necessary but not safe (a port which depends on libpng 1.2.x and won't work with libpng 1.0.x) both safe and necessary (a bugfix in the earlier version which doesn't affect compatibility otherwise) So I think both the port, and the dependency, should carry some sort of versioning information. The port should say which versions of the dependency it's compatible with, and the dependency should say which earlier versions are safe to upgrade from. - Rahul To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message