Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 17:08:51 +0100 (CET) From: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> To: tadayuki.okada@windriver.com Cc: tadayuki@mediaone.net, mi@aldan.algebra.com, will@csociety.org, cvs-committers@freebsd.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/graphics/gd Makefile pkg-comment Message-ID: <200201231608.g0NG8qa05110@Magelan.Leidinger.net> In-Reply-To: <3C4ECB80.4996C07F@windriver.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 23 Jan, Tadayuki OKADA wrote:
>> >> > I meant:
>> >> > If port A depends on port B's library.
>> >> > port B updated. Assume it breaks binary compatibility.
>> >> > port A build will not be broken, so forget PORTREVISION bump.
>> >> > People update port B, but not port A. so port A will stop working.
>> >>
>> >> The already installed port A will also stop to work if the Makefile for
>> >> port A specifies the needed version in LIB_DEPENDS. That's what Mikhail
>> >> tried to say.
>> > I meant installed port. With his method, people can't tell if installed
>> > port A should be updated or not.
>>
>> Personally I don't see a great difference between 'less
>> /usr/ports/.../portA/Makefile' and 'ldd /path/to/binary/of/portA'.
> I think you missed the point. I'm talking about the case updated port B
> breaks binary compatibility with the previous version.
> In that case, 'ldd' is likely to cause troubles.
> And shared library's major version change usually means 'incompatibility'
ABI incompatibility, but not always API incompatibility.
>> Mikhail's proposal doesn't change the _run_ time behavior compared to
>> the actual approach. His proposal changes the _build_ time behavior.
> port A needs to be rebuit, when port B breaks binary compatibility.
Yes, with an emphasis on 'binary'.
> If you bump PORTREVISION, people can tell port A needs to be updated
> by pkg_version or portversion.
Yes. But Mikhail doesn't talk about this. And it's possible with his
proposal too. We already have/generate dependency information in/for
the INDEX, so we just can use it to determine the ports which need an
PORTREVISION bump.
> If you don't specify the lib version, port A build may not break,
> so you are likely to forget PORTREVISION bump.
Yes. That's true. But this isn't common practice. The actual common
practice is to not increment the PORTREVISION if a library increments
its version number (and you've got an explanation why).
And even if we decide to increment the PORTREVISION this isn't really a
strong argument as I already explained above.
Bye,
Alexander.
--
To boldly go where I surely don't belong.
http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net
GPG fingerprint = C518 BC70 E67F 143F BE91 3365 79E2 9C60 B006 3FE7
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?200201231608.g0NG8qa05110>