Date: 12 Mar 2002 10:46:46 +0200 From: Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@FreeBSD.org> To: Akinori MUSHA <knu@iDaemons.org> Cc: MANTANI Nobutaka <nobutaka@nobutaka.com>, 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 ... Message-ID: <1015921012.255.1.camel@notebook> In-Reply-To: <86ofhuabay.wl@archon.local.idaemons.org> 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> <86ofhuabay.wl@archon.local.idaemons.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--=-O+MplAdNk+l9WUs2p5hJ Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, 2002-03-12 at 02:18, Akinori MUSHA wrote: > 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 alread= y > > 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 o= r > > 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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? Yes, please do. > > In a nutshell idea is to assign each port with something called > > PKGABIVERSION (>=3D0, 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, becaus= e > > 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. >=20 > 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." ? >=20 > 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. >=20 >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 >=20 > P.S. >=20 > 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. Thanks! -Maxim --=-O+MplAdNk+l9WUs2p5hJ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (FreeBSD) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQA8jblzoNu5t4iCBa8RAg/3AJ4pc0BChcM7Pv/uXiRgBhGZUN6SlACfaFH7 WpktWWIfHWMCsJwvs9AR2IE= =P+r6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-O+MplAdNk+l9WUs2p5hJ-- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1015921012.255.1.camel>