From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Feb 20 01:23:36 2012
Return-Path: <owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org
Received: by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 1033)
	id C5F8E1065674; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 01:23:36 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 01:23:36 +0000
From: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org>
To: cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org
Message-ID: <20120220012336.GA41983@FreeBSD.org>
References: <201202182356.q1INuU7V061378@repoman.freebsd.org>
	<20120219060053.GA45762@FreeBSD.org>
	<20120219150943.GA6673@magic.hamla.org>
	<20120219164528.GA48166@FreeBSD.org>
	<20120219175645.GA6833@magic.hamla.org>
	<20120219191106.GA71541@FreeBSD.org>
	<20120219203937.GA6943@magic.hamla.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20120219203937.GA6943@magic.hamla.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i
Cc: Eitan Adler <eadler@FreeBSD.org>, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org,
	ports-committers@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/devel/adime Makefile ports/x11-wm/icewm
	Makefile ports/graphics/scr2png Makefile ports/x11/xbindkeys
	Makefile
X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: **OBSOLETE** CVS commit messages for the entire tree
	<cvs-all.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all>,
	<mailto:cvs-all-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/cvs-all>
List-Post: <mailto:cvs-all@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cvs-all-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all>,
	<mailto:cvs-all-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 01:23:36 -0000

On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 03:39:38PM -0500, Sahil Tandon wrote:
> On Sun, 2012-02-19 at 19:11:06 +0000, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
> > So far it seems that my assessments are not being counterargued with
> > valid technical points and facts.
> 
> Let me point you, once again, to the thread on freebsd-ports in which
> arguments have already been made against specifying library numbers in
> LIB_DEPENDS.  For me, mi@ and dougb@'s arguments are more compelling
> than yours.

"Wine argument" does not sound too technical to me.  I asked a question, how
can one guarantee if some arbitrary port is ABI dependent or not.  I have
not heard the answer so far.  I myself do not see it either.  Thus, the
whole point that specifying exact ABI version might not be required is moot.
Thus, it's safer to always specify it.  At least it allows to catch versions
inconsistencies earlier.

./danfe