Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 03:56:13 +0900 From: "Akinori MUSHA" <knu@iDaemons.org> To: Mikhail Teterin <mi@aldan.algebra.com> Cc: roam@ringlet.net, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, portmgr@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: <86u1rlaa42.wl@archon.local.idaemons.org> In-Reply-To: <200203121753.g2CHrg3b074070@aldan.algebra.com> References: <86wuwhag96.wl@archon.local.idaemons.org> <200203121753.g2CHrg3b074070@aldan.algebra.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At Tue, 12 Mar 2002 12:53:42 -0500 (EST),
Mikhail Teterin wrote:
> I disagree. Here is my view. Ports System is all about building and
> installing third party software from its source code (when available).
> Some of that third party software depends on data-files, executables,
> and shared libraries, which are installed by other third (fourth?) party
> software. There needs to be a way of describing such dependencies. This
> descriptions are part of the _primary_ objective of the ports system.
> And any problems with them, and solutions to those problems are also
> parts of the _primary_ objective.
>
> The binary packages are derivatives of the ports and thus are of
> secondary importance.
You are still misunderstanding something. PORTREVISION is not just
for binary packages. As you say, few people do binary upgrading
because there is no good way to do that (even with portupgrade); we
are here talking about ports.
One day one builds and installs port A and then port B which depends
on A, and after a week the port A is updated with a library major
bump. Now, if the committer who updates the port A do PORTREVISION
bumps for the port B and other dependant ports properly, one will be
notified by the /etc/periodic/weekly/400.status-pkg script that an
upgrade of the port A is available and the port B should be upgraded
at the same time,
This is VERY common manners among average ports users. If you don't
believe me, ask users on ports@.
> > In the last discussion, some people expressed anxiety that people
> > might neglect bumping PORTREVISIONs because of your changes. Do you
> > remember?
>
> I do. However, I countered, that such bumping is only serving the binary
> upgrades, which can be done without it anyway, and rejected that argument.
You cannot "reject" what we once introduced after a discussion.
PORTREVISION was introduced for the very purose; to help people know
when they should upgrade which.
Please do not go selfish and break the written rules other people have
been keeping. If you want to do what conflicts with the rules,
convince portmgr and change the rules first. We are a team. You
cannot play arbitrarily.
> I find it much easier to communicate with computers, than with people
> :-) If I knew Python, I'd concentrate on coding the feature instead of
> preaching to people...
>
> Then, the PORTREVISION bump would only be needed if the port itself
> changes.
Well, do not mistake me... While the feature can and should be
implemented in most tools like the standard pkg_* and portupgrade,
proper PORTREVISION bumping keeps being a duty until then.
--
/
/__ __ 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 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?86u1rlaa42.wl>