Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 23 Jan 2002 17:31:53 -0500 (EST)
From:      Mikhail Teterin <mi@aldan.algebra.com>
To:        tadayuki.okada@windriver.com
Cc:        tadayuki@mediaone.net, will@csociety.org, ports@FreeBSD.org
Subject:   Re: cvs commit: ports/graphics/gd Makefile pkg-comment
Message-ID:  <200201232231.g0NMVuQ77729@aldan.algebra.com>
In-Reply-To: <3C4EF390.3CD61EE4@windriver.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 23 Jan, Tadayuki OKADA wrote:
 
>> An earlier version of  port B is already present and  port A is known
>> to work  fine with it.  So it detects  the acceptable version  of the
>> libB and  compiles/links with it. I  don't think my idea  affects the
>> way upgrades are handled.

> You can't assume people keep old  version as it was. portupgrade leave
> old version of  shared libraries by default, but there  is a option to
> remove them.

Then things may break for them with the current scheme too... The change
I'm advocating  affects only the building  of port A. If  the acceptable
library of port B is present,  it will build.

The  dependency tracking  is quite  broken anyway  already --  the newly
built port A is registered as dependent  on the latest version of port B
-- not  the actually  installed version  (which may  be outdated,  be of
language specific flavor, or compiled with non-default options, etc.).

> And think about  the situation: port B update  which includes critical
> bug fixes. But port A is still using old version of library...

Again... Sorry  for the evident  confusion. My proposal does  not modify
the dependency  tracking (not  significantly, anyway).  When registering
the  port A,  the latest  version  of port  B will  be recorded  (rather
bogusly, see above) -- just as now. The idea seemply allows to relax the
dependency requirements for those, who build the ports from source.

>> BTW,  come  to  think  of  it, the  whole  *_DEPENDS  system  should,
>> probably, be  changed to look  for the file/library in  the +CONTENTS
>> files under /var/db/pkg...

> I  agree that  ports system  needs to  be refined.  But until  then we
> should keep the rule suitable for current system.

Yes. And I think, my changes remain suitable for the current system.

	-mi



To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200201232231.g0NMVuQ77729>