From owner-freebsd-ports Mon Mar 11 22: 6:28 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mail.musha.org (daemon.musha.org [218.44.187.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C26D337B402; Mon, 11 Mar 2002 22:06:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from archon.local.idaemons.org (archon.local.idaemons.org [192.168.1.32]) by mail.musha.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C66FB4D8A2; Tue, 12 Mar 2002 15:06:09 +0900 (JST) Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 09:18:13 +0900 Message-ID: <86ofhuabay.wl@archon.local.idaemons.org> From: "Akinori MUSHA" To: Maxim Sobolev Cc: MANTANI Nobutaka , cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/graphics/autotrace Makefile ports/graphics/graphviz Makefile ports/graphics/libafterimage Makefile ports/graphics/librsvg Makefile ports/graphics/libwmf Makefile ports/graphics/sdl_ttf Makefile ports/print/ft2demos Makefile ... In-Reply-To: <1015886047.1763.26.camel@notebook> References: <200203111725.g2BHPVF52248@freefall.freebsd.org> <86adte28qw.wl@excalibur.nobutaka.com> <3C8D0B5D.3186A73D@FreeBSD.org> <86r8mqajfe.wl@archon.local.idaemons.org> <1015886047.1763.26.camel@notebook> User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.9.7 (Unchained Melody) SEMI/1.14.3 (Ushinoya) LIMIT/1.14.7 (Fujiidera) APEL/10.3 MULE XEmacs/21.1 (patch 14) (Cuyahoga Valley) (i386--freebsd) Organization: Associated I. Daemons X-PGP-Public-Key: finger knu@FreeBSD.org X-PGP-Fingerprint: 081D 099C 1705 861D 4B70 B04A 920B EFC7 9FD9 E1EE MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.3 - "Ushinoya") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org At 12 Mar 2002 00:34:19 +0200, sobomax wrote: > As I said earlier, what we really need is the feature that will track > ABI-incompatible upgrades and when such upgrade is performed bump > PORTREVISION of all dependent ports automagically. Actually I've already > described prototype of such feature and instead of spending out time > arguing whether or not we need to bump PORTREVISION on 10 out of tens or > even hundreds ports that use freetype (waste of time IMO) in the long > run we are better off to implement such feature and forget about it. That sounds good, but aren't you supposed to help the users today before talking about the future? It is always innocent users who suffer from developers' unthoughtful misjudgement. Remind that your "wasting" time will help a bunch of users' and save their time a lot. While that feature would be useful in the future and it is hard to do the PORTREVISION bumps for each and every dependant port, how about just doing with most popular ports such as ImageMagick/libwmf, gd/gd2 and XFree86-4-libraries for the moment? It might be good enough for most users. If you don't object, shall I do it tonight? > In a nutshell idea is to assign each port with something called > PKGABIVERSION (>=0, non-decreasing), which will need to be increased > each time when some ABI-incompatible change is committed (e.g. shlib > version bump) and make PKGREVISION of each port be an arithmetical sum > of PKGABIVERSION's of all its dependencies and its own PORTREVISION. > Actual implementation I'm leaving as an exercise for the reader, because > I do not use portupgrade by myself and therefore have no interest in > doing it on my own. For me `pkg_delete -r freetype2\* ; cd > /usr/ports/x11/gnome ; make reinstall' is absolutely sufficient. No, I'm not talking about you but ordinary users. You are saying what.. "People, just delete and reinstall everything, because I'm absolutely fine with it." ? Because you are the one who committed the upgrade, you surely know exactly what is happening and how to handle the situation. But how about users? They won't even know something significant is happening until they happen to upgrade freetype2 and face the serious library dependency breakage. By not bumping the dependant ports' PORTREVISIONs, you are taking away the chance for them to "smell" something significant, or at least you are making it unable for pkg_version users to properly upgrade packages the way they usually do on a weekly basis or so. As for portupgrade, honestly I don't care a pin if you use it, if you like it or if you take it into account when maintaining ports and altering the ports infrastructure. I'm providing users the tool suite because I want to allow them to handle difficult situations by themselves even though the ports system is badly broken and even though developers including me often do not do things properly where they are supposed to. I believe ports (and probably any tool/system for users) should not be something you get used to using inconveniently. You should not assume people can or should live with inconvenience that is avoidable if we developers work just a little bit harder and wiser. P.S. I value your continuous efforts on ports and like your ideas like the above. Maybe I'll comment on some of them later this week if I can take the time. -- / /__ __ Akinori.org / MUSHA.org / ) ) ) ) / FreeBSD.org / Ruby-lang.org Akinori MUSHA aka / (_ / ( (__( @ iDaemons.org / and.or.jp "Somewhere out of a memory.. of lighted streets on quiet nights.." To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message