Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 15:17:23 -0800 From: "Chris H" <bsd-lists@bsdforge.com> To: ports@FreeBSD.org, Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@FreeBSD.org>, Bryan Drewery <bdrewery@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: [HEADSUP] Upcoming change in dependency registration Message-ID: <f2799d5e5d40c6996639a358178cad6f@ultimatedns.net> In-Reply-To: <54C17E8B.1060400@FreeBSD.org> References: <20150122180912.GE81001@ivaldir.etoilebsd.net> <7996d75b9d724f65af7dd3f63033eb03@ultimatedns.net>, <54C17E8B.1060400@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 22 Jan 2015 16:49:47 -0600 Bryan Drewery <bdrewery@FreeBSD.org> wrote > On 1/22/2015 2:24 PM, Chris H wrote: > > On Thu, 22 Jan 2015 19:09:13 +0100 Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@FreeBSD.org> > > wrote > >> Hi all > >> > >> Some changes are coming to the ports, the diff is rather simple, but the > >> change of behaviour is worse notifying all maintainers: > >> > >> Currently and since very long the dependency registration in the ports > >> tree is based on the origin of the packages. which makes it unfriendly > >> with FLAVORS and Subpackages. > >> > >> The ports tree has been changed in the branch > >> https://svnweb.freebsd.org/ports/projects/rework-dependency-registration/ > >> .. > >> > >> This change is being exp-run and will be committed as soon as it is stable > >> enough > >> > >> Best regards, > >> Bapt > > Hi Bapt. > > Will this be OR'ed? In other words; will this create compatibility > > issues for anyone using ports without this change? While I develop > > on 11-CURRENT. I wonder about developers that aren't, or haven't yet > > incorporated this new change? (granted, developers *should* always > > be running *fairly* current revision(s)). > > I guess I'm just wondering if ports, and those still using them, that > > don't *yet* incorporate this change, will still continue to work > > as intended/expected (at least for awhile). > > > > I'm still reading the proposed changes. :) > > > > Thanks. > > > > --Chris > > > > For the most part, ports written after this change can be used without > this change. The py-27 py-33 multiple installations stuff maybe not. > > This required action here is to fix dependencies depending on *generated > files* rather than *plist files*. This is a proper fix even without this > change. So the ports will still work without this change. > > The bigger picture changes, such as sub-packages, flavors and flexible > dependencies, are not here yet. Those changes will most definitely not > be forward-compat once they go in. Ports written after those won't work > with older framework. We're not quite there yet though. Looking forward to this! :) > > And in general, the ports tree is a single snapshot. It's only supported > to build a port using the exact Mk/ it was checked-in as. At my work we > violate this frequently though. It's on us/you to deal with this if you > choose to go off book. Understood. Thanks for clearing things up, Bryan! > > -- > Regards, > Bryan Drewery --Chris --
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?f2799d5e5d40c6996639a358178cad6f>