Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 18:38:12 +0100 From: CeDeROM <cederom@tlen.pl> To: Kurt Jaeger <lists@opsec.eu> Cc: Kubilay Kocak <koobs@freebsd.org>, sunpoet@freebsd.org, freebsd-ports <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>, oerg@freebsd.org, Dmitry Sivachenko <demon@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: [devel/protobuf] upgrade request to 3 Message-ID: <CAFYkXj==0SQ31HcsKR8=UiRyQnzUEJsbeqBkrykw5X-p_FAo%2BA@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20161130172607.GB2648@home.opsec.eu> References: <CAFYkXj=NmgkyL_6zwjmyqf5RkSjQ-%2B22TsLrCF2j7c2E-74UCA@mail.gmail.com> <922fa900-010b-ae3e-5f97-7dccac0e7eda@FreeBSD.org> <20161130172607.GB2648@home.opsec.eu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 6:26 PM, Kurt Jaeger <lists@opsec.eu> wrote: > Hi! > >> This probably requires a new port (protobuf30), as it crosses a major >> version boundary (2.x -> 3.x) and judging by the presence of separate >> protobuf (2.6.x) and protobuf25 port. > > As far as I studied the issue, a new version is not required. See > https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=212973 Tanks! :-) It looks that 2 and 3 have different API. Keeping 'protobuf' up to date and leaving 'protobuf2' for legacy reasons seems to be reasonable.. :-) -- CeDeROM, SQ7MHZ, http://www.tomek.cedro.info
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAFYkXj==0SQ31HcsKR8=UiRyQnzUEJsbeqBkrykw5X-p_FAo%2BA>