Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 07:18:32 -0700 From: David Southwell <david@vizion2000.net> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Fwd: Re: ImageMagick modules (Re: ImageMagick - portupgrade failure -amd64 openexr issues) Message-ID: <200710160718.33039.david@vizion2000.net>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
=2D--------- Forwarded Message ---------- Subject: Re: ImageMagick modules (Re: ImageMagick - portupgrade failure -am= d64=20 openexr issues) Date: Tuesday 16 October 2007 =46rom: David Southwell <david@vizion2000.net> To: Mikhail Teterin <mi+kde@aldan.algebra.com> On Tuesday 16 October 2007 05:44:25 you wrote: > On =D0=B2=D1=96=D0=B2=D1=82=D0=BE=D1=80=D0=BE=D0=BA 16 =D0=B6=D0=BE=D0=B2= =D1=82=D0=B5=D0=BD=D1=8C 2007, David Southwell wrote: > =3D On Tuesday 16 October 2007 05:24:15 you wrote: > =3D > On =D0=B2=D1=96=D0=B2=D1=82=D0=BE=D1=80=D0=BE=D0=BA 16 =D0=B6=D0=BE= =D0=B2=D1=82=D0=B5=D0=BD=D1=8C 2007, David Southwell wrote: > =3D > =3D > How about a patch for the makefile? > =3D > > =3D > Which makefile? ImageMagick's or portupgrade's? The warning is > legitimate =3D > -- older version of OpenExr /may/ interefere. It may not= -- > depending on =3D > too many circumstance to check within ImageMagick's > makefile. > =3D > =3D A few things to think about. > =3D > =3D In response to your question maybe both but certainly I feel the > =3D ImageMagick's makefile should check whether the installed version of > OpenEXR =3D necessitates the issue of a warning. The Issue of inappropria= te > warnings by =3D any port is, IMHO, a bug. > > This would complicate the port even further. But do take a crack at it, a= nd > send me a patch, if you come up with something. > > =3D > portupgrade ought to proceed despite the warnings -- if there is no= way > to =3D > force it, that's a bug. But I do not maintain portupgrade > =3D > =3D I do not agree. The purpose of a warning is to ensure that installati= on > =3D cannot proceed without human interbvention. > > No, that's a purpose of an /error/. A /warning/ is to, uhm, warn... > Portupgrade seems to be treating warnings as errors, but that is not my > fault... > > =3D If every application issued inappropriate warning then would not the > entire =3D ports system grind to a halt? A philosophy of warn unless "test > valid" is =3D appropriate here. > > It is simply too difficult to /finely/ automatically determine, whether to > proceed here. So if a simple /crude/ method suggests, there might be a > problem, I issue a warning and proceed anyway. > > =3D The focus IMHO needs to be on what is actually installed. not on wha= t is > =3D installed by default. In my case both perl and OpenEXR are installed = with > =3D threads. > > You are right. But this is too difficult to check for in a port. Try it... > > -mi I agree it can be difficult in some instances but those can these not be=20 limited by careful use of configuration options and dependency management=20 where that is not too difficult to implement. For many ports when a user=20 selects an option during configuration then the requirements for that optio= n=20 can be handled as a dependency (e.g for Imagemagick Perl with_threads=3Dyes= (or=20 OpenExr Version (xxx.xx) ). So when the option is selected the users choice= s=20 can be implemented so as to enable the upgrade to proceed without throwing= =20 inappropriate warnings. Users can be advised, during the make config routin= e,=20 of the cponsequences of selecting an option. My two pennorth =2D------------------------------------------------------
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200710160718.33039.david>