From owner-cvs-all Wed Jan 23 6:41:38 2002 Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from mail.wrs.com (unknown-1-11.windriver.com [147.11.1.11]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E46C37B404; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 06:41:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from windriver.com ([128.224.195.173]) by mail.wrs.com (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id GAA28192; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 06:39:47 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <3C4ECB80.4996C07F@windriver.com> Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 09:41:04 -0500 From: Tadayuki OKADA Organization: Wind River X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79C-ja [ja_JP.EUC] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.2 i386) X-Accept-Language: ja, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alexander Leidinger 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 References: <200201231243.g0NChca03239@Magelan.Leidinger.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Hi, Alexander Leidinger wrote: > > On 22 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' > 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. If you bump PORTREVISION, people can tell port A needs to be updated by pkg_version or portversion. If you don't specify the lib version, port A build may not break, so you are likely to forget PORTREVISION bump. Regards, -- Tadayuki OKADA To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message