Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 15:46:11 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 226611] KDE4_GENERIC_LIB_VERSION set to expected, not factual Message-ID: <bug-226611-13-fHNG4oEANi@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-226611-13@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-226611-13@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D226611 --- Comment #8 from Mikhail Teterin <mi@FreeBSD.org> --- (In reply to Mathieu Arnold from comment #7) > this was always the case Not only is the above statement not true, you, Mathieu Arnold, _know_ it to= be untrue. One proof is in your Bug 114167, comment #4, dating back to 2014. That entire PR was filed to handle the situation, when an already installed shared library has a major number different from what the latest version of= its port installed. The change I proposed in 2007 eventually got rejected (in 2012), because of= all the work, that's gone into removing the unwarranted shared-library major numbers from the individual ports. Had the policy you claim to have "always" been in effect, actually been in effect, that "major effort" -- as eadler@ called in Bug 114167, comment #2 = -- would not have been necessary and my proposal would've been rejected much sooner. And, of course, various ports as well as bits under Mk/, make an effort to = work with different versions of dependencies -- examples abound, just look into Mk/Uses/compiler.mk for one... Now, I'd be willing to give the benefit of the doubt to a fellow FreeBSD committer, but this is not the first time you assert this policy "always" having been in place, which is a demonstrable untruth. I refer now to the B= ug 196518, comment #5, where you stated -- without any evidence -- the same th= ing: > We do not support partial upgrades, never had, never will. Though I asked you to substantiate it back then, you never did. Now that any reasonable reader is convinced, the policy you are referring t= o as "always there", was not in place even in 2012, I ask you again: . What -- other than your own imagination -- makes you believe, it exists TODAY? A link to Handbook would be helpful here. . Where can one find the archive of the discussion, which resulted in the policy being accepted by FreeBSD/portmgr (some time in or after 2012)? If t= he mailing list is closed to mortals, a statement identifying just the dates, = when the discussion took place, would suffice. And if you can not convincingly address the above bullet-points, kindly sta= te for the record, that you made a mistake and the policy you THOUGHT was in place, in fact, is not. I'd really hate to repeat this conversation with an= yone for the THIRD time 3 years later... > any other configuration is not supported. The entire "not supported" line is completely meaningless in the context of= a volunteer open source project -- this too is something I told you in Bug 196518, comment #9. The "we don't support that" line is for people working under commercial Service Level Agreements (SLAs), where the would-be suppor= ter owes MONEY to the supported, if they can not adequately fix a problem within specified time. In a volunteer-based project there are neither "guarantees" nor "not supported". There are only "this is a problem that should be addressed, tha= nks for letting us know" (with various degrees of priorities) or "this works as intended". --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-226611-13-fHNG4oEANi>