Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 13:32:50 -0500 From: "Mikhail T." <mi+thun@aldan.algebra.com> To: Chris Rees <crees@freebsd.org> Cc: Jakub Lach <jakub_lach@mailplus.pl>, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: recent portrevision bump for libvpx Message-ID: <4F3E9D52.1090000@aldan.algebra.com> In-Reply-To: <CADLo83_ytDv2%2BKER5q9CF2y_T03PTegpArZ_PX0i-Lnnjtbd5Q@mail.gmail.com> References: <4F3E289D.9050605@FreeBSD.org> <4F3E2CED.90601@FreeBSD.org> <4F3E3537.9040105@FreeBSD.org> <1329478316415-5492205.post@n5.nabble.com> <4F3E5D41.9050503@aldan.algebra.com> <CADLo83_ytDv2%2BKER5q9CF2y_T03PTegpArZ_PX0i-Lnnjtbd5Q@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 17.02.2012 12:36, Chris Rees wrote:
>> Yet again I'd like to point out, that -- contrary to the wide-spread
>> > practice -- ports should not, by default, list a particular shlib major
>> > number in LIB_DEPENDS. Only in cases, when a wrong version of some libfoo is
>> > known to cause problems, should the correct version be explicitly given in
>> > LIB_DEPENDS.
> Perhaps someone could make a patch for the Porter's Handbook.
Last time I broached the subject, I could not get my argument through... I even
once made a patch, which would've allowed the user (at their own risk) to tell
bsd.port.mk to ignore all explicitly-specified shlib-major numbers -- and
portmgr@ shut it down, even though the new flag would not be on by default.
If the consensus has changed over the years, coming up with the new text for the
manual would not be a problem...
-mi
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4F3E9D52.1090000>