Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 14:32:06 -0600 From: Jeremy Messenger <mezz.freebsd@gmail.com> To: Doug Barton <dougb@freebsd.org> Cc: cvs-ports@freebsd.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org, Alex Dupre <ale@freebsd.org>, ports-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/security/dirmngr Makefile ports/security/gnupg Makefile ports/security/gpa Makefile ports/security/gpgme Makefile ports/security/libassuan Makefile distinfo pkg-descr ports/security/opensc Makefile Message-ID: <AANLkTimNmNLeAexKdMo2mVx-NcetpdP0h47PtAh5z10L@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4D13AA9E.70208@FreeBSD.org> References: <201012221916.oBMJGCMY069579@repoman.freebsd.org> <AANLkTik7O8aB-4ehj21NsSc0w6TAjm%2BLP4a5LOkEOqoY@mail.gmail.com> <4D139A36.1080208@FreeBSD.org> <AANLkTikwLkHJTTG6SDutgQ-tK_mzeAZ9OmN%2BpRF=jUaE@mail.gmail.com> <4D139DC9.1010704@FreeBSD.org> <4D13A438.70805@FreeBSD.org> <4D13AA9E.70208@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 2:01 PM, Doug Barton <dougb@freebsd.org> wrote: > On 12/23/2010 11:34, Alex Dupre wrote: >> >> Doug Barton ha scritto: >>>> >>>> On Linux, it's still .so.0 while on FreeBSD changed to .so.1. >>> >>> To be clear, *I* didn't change anything, I just dealt with the change >>> that the vendor made. If you'd like to share your concerns with them, >>> I'm sure that they would be willing to listen. >> >> What Jeremy is saying is that the vendor probably didn't change version >> number, but due to a libtool bug on FreeBSD it happened, and using the >> ltverhack it could be automatically fixed. > > And what *I* am saying is that if there is a bug elsewhere, it should be > fixed elsewhere. Meanwhile, if anyone else wants to engage in idle > speculation it's going to be ignored. Discussion based on facts is always > welcome of course. You need to understand that It's not that simple. We can't put a patch in libtool by default or we will have to change a lot lot lot of ports. Then deal with users' machines. Also, the libtool scripts are included in some tarballs that was generated, so it has to be patched in some of ports. The ltverhack is helping us to do a baby step by step. If all ports have libtool fix then upstream libtool will accept the patch to fix bug. Don't you want to make FreeBSD better? :-P Do you know that bump without ABI change is wrong? What if other applications that depend on this port by using dlopen() that looking for .so.0? It won't work because of wrong .so.N. I have maintained mono ports long time ago. They have a lot of mono stuff that open .so.N without link it. We had to add a lot of patches in mono ports long time ago, which we no longer need to do in most stuff with that ltverhack. We have been using it in almost all of our (gnome@) ports for very long time. Do you remember how we upgrade GNOME before that ltverhack? It was complicate upgrade process with script. With all of that fix, we no longer need a script to help with GNOME upgrade. Much less complicate and most of them can be done by simple 'portmaster or portupgrade -a'. Cheers, Mezz > Doug > > -- > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much. > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0-- OK Go > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DN= S. > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Yours for the right price. =A0:) =A0http://SupersetSolutio= ns.com/ --=20 mezz.freebsd@gmail.com - mezz@FreeBSD.org FreeBSD GNOME Team http://www.FreeBSD.org/gnome/ - gnome@FreeBSD.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?AANLkTimNmNLeAexKdMo2mVx-NcetpdP0h47PtAh5z10L>