From owner-cvs-all Wed Jan 23 8:43:52 2002 Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from mout0.freenet.de (mout0.freenet.de [194.97.50.131]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E533737B416; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 08:43:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from [194.97.50.144] (helo=mx1.freenet.de) by mout0.freenet.de with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #3) id 16TQUo-0007nN-00; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 17:43:34 +0100 Received: from a395a.pppool.de ([213.6.57.90] helo=Magelan.Leidinger.net) by mx1.freenet.de with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #3) id 16TQUn-0008W9-00; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 17:43:34 +0100 Received: from Leidinger.net (netchild@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by Magelan.Leidinger.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g0NG8qa05110; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 17:08:53 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from netchild@Leidinger.net) Message-Id: <200201231608.g0NG8qa05110@Magelan.Leidinger.net> Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 17:08:51 +0100 (CET) From: Alexander Leidinger Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/graphics/gd Makefile pkg-comment To: tadayuki.okada@windriver.com Cc: tadayuki@mediaone.net, mi@aldan.algebra.com, will@csociety.org, cvs-committers@freebsd.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <3C4ECB80.4996C07F@windriver.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/plain; charset=us-ascii 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 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