Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 10:53:50 +0200 From: Marcus von Appen <mva@sysfault.org> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org, edwin@freebsd.org Subject: devel/sdl12 update and version bump Message-ID: <20060831085350.GA889@medusa.sysfault.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--gBBFr7Ir9EOA20Yy
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi,
I updated sdl12 to the latest stable version 1.2.11 on my system and
thought, that it might be a good thing to incorporate the both related
reports ports/99943 and ports/70900 (which can be closed then).
As both ports/70900 suggests, the patch matches the SDL version 1.2. So
instead of using 'sdl11' and 'SDL11', ... one would use 'sdl12',
'SDL12', ...
According to a quick `find /usr/ports -type f |xargs grep "sdl11"` there
are 37 ports with 42 files, which would need to be patched,
http://www.sysfault.org/sdl12-patch.log
and around 400-500 ports would possibly need a version bump to chase the
update (according to the usage of USE_SDL in /usr/ports).
Anyways, I personally dislike the sdl-config naming hack as it simply
has no use anymore and is applied to a _stable_ version. Instead of
using SDL12, sdl12-..., I would use the default. There is only one
libSDL port available at the moment, libSDL 1.3 is still in development
and I do not think, that the majority of applications will switch to
libSDL 1.3 instantly when it is out.
Thus I'd vote to make the critical jump, drop the renaming for
devel/sdl12 and fix up all related ports. If a devel/sdl13 port is about
to be committed, we can rename it, wait for the majority of ports to be
usable with it and then drop (if no longer needed) sdl12 completely or
change it back to sdl12-... or whatever else.
Another possible solutions would be symlinks to the current stable and
favourized sdl version, which match the SDL defaults.
It also would ease a lot for developers as they would not have to care
about the FreeBSD specific renaming scheme.
So before I submit another pr for sdl12 which is rejected, I'd like to
hear, whether the patch for 1.2.11 (or the 1.2 branch in general) should
use=20
a) SDL12 sdl12-config, sdl12.pc... (logical fix for FreeBSD renaming
b) SDL11 sdl11-config, sdl11.pc... (current default)
c) SDL, sdl-config, sdl.pc (SDL default)
d) ln -s (symlinks to the renamed stuff to
ease life for developers and porters)
I am not subscribed to freebsd-ports, so please put me into the CC when
you answer to the list.
Regards
Marcus
--gBBFr7Ir9EOA20Yy
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (FreeBSD)
iD8DBQFE9qOeo/JpszXavhwRAmNPAKCGWyZfLk1fZZhkpk98hPLI2yZA7wCfe2r3
Gl1VtocpQPin1bZvwXgCQt4=
=yGQG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--gBBFr7Ir9EOA20Yy--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060831085350.GA889>