Date: Sat, 01 Aug 2009 10:10:17 +0100 From: Matthew Seaman <m.seaman@infracaninophile.co.uk> To: Erik Trulsson <ertr1013@student.uu.se> Cc: ports@freebsd.org, "Jason J. Hellenthal" <jasonh@DataIX.net> Subject: Re: ports/*/jpeg "Thanks a lot guys" Message-ID: <4A740679.1020608@infracaninophile.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <20090731173636.GA76357@owl.midgard.homeip.net> References: <20090731121249.538ea7e7.jasonh@DataIX.net> <20090731173636.GA76357@owl.midgard.homeip.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
--------------enig9EA87E5AE76A827A1EE0A732
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Erik Trulsson wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 12:12:49PM -0400, Jason J. Hellenthal wrote:
>> Now that I have finally upgraded my system in full from the last mix-u=
p
>> with jpeg, You guys have bumped up every PORTREVISION that depends on =
jpeg
>> "Great real great" Now I get to spend another three days fixing up som=
e
>> more packages and rebuilding about 800+ ports.
>>
>> Thanks a whole lot.
>=20
> Nobody is forcing you to rebuild your ports just because the PORTREVISI=
ON
> was bumped. If everything works fine for you there is actually no good=
> reason at all to do so.
The OP does have a valid point though. I just got an e-mail from Freshpo=
rts
saying that a bunch of ports I maintain had had PORTREVISION bumps becaus=
e of
the jpeg update. Which is all fine and dandy, except that these were the=
=20
www/p5-RT-* extension modules for RT. First of all, they are pure perl: =
there's
no object linkage with the jpeg shlibs at all. Secondly, they have nothi=
ng
to do with manipulating jpeg data in any way, shape or form. One of thei=
r
dependencies links against libjpeg: that's it.
Blanket modification of PORTREVISION for everything that can depend on a =
shlib
which has had an ABI version bump is certainly effective, but it seems to=
o much
of a blunt instrument to me. You don't need a revision bump for dependen=
cies
that install no ELF format executables, shlibs or similar. Detecting wha=
t ports
install ELF executables is not too hard -- I submitted ports/129210 which=
should
do the job, although I was thinking more along the lines of factoring out=
ports
that are architecture independent and only building them once on the pack=
age build
cluster when I submitted that. Needs some work on capturing the output f=
or use by
port comitters / maintainers
Cheers,
Matthew =20
--=20
Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 7 Priory Courtyard
Flat 3
PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate
Kent, CT11 9PW
--------------enig9EA87E5AE76A827A1EE0A732
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.12 (FreeBSD)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEYEAREIAAYFAkp0Bn4ACgkQ8Mjk52CukIxcEACdEHMSf5Wpdgg7ANppnjnmPoro
J3EAnjiH9jNbWE2YiTb7ZclSdiMZhzlS
=xCGI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--------------enig9EA87E5AE76A827A1EE0A732--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4A740679.1020608>