Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 00:35:37 -0500 From: Tadayuki OKADA <tadayuki@mediaone.net> To: Tadayuki OKADA <tadayuki@mediaone.net> Cc: mi@aldan.algebra.com, will@csociety.org, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/graphics/gd Makefile pkg-comment Message-ID: <20020122003537.7d1eadbb.tadayuki@mediaone.net> In-Reply-To: <20020121233923.75304d3c.tadayuki@mediaone.net> References: <20020121232710.711cd51d.tadayuki@mediaone.net> <200201220425.g0M4PlQ53898@aldan.algebra.com> <20020121233923.75304d3c.tadayuki@mediaone.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 21 Jan 2002 23:39:23 -0500 Tadayuki OKADA <tadayuki@mediaone.net> wrote: > > Would you be able to offer an example on how this is relevant to the > > argument? Thanks! > Sorry, I was not clear. > > I meant: > If port A depends on port B's library. > port B updated. Assume it breaks binary compatibility. > port A build will not be broken, so forget PORTREVISION bump. > People update port B, but not port A. so port A will stop working. And isn't it the rule to bump PORTREVISION when binary is changed? We don't want 2 different packages which have same version but depend on different version of shared library, do we? -- Tadayuki OKADA To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020122003537.7d1eadbb.tadayuki>