Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 22:22:31 -0500 From: Tadayuki OKADA <tadayuki@mediaone.net> To: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> Cc: tadayuki.okada@windriver.com, mi@aldan.algebra.com, will@csociety.org, freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/graphics/gd Makefile pkg-comment Message-ID: <20020126222231.1c336cf3.tadayuki@mediaone.net> In-Reply-To: <200201251123.g0PBNQu28749@Magelan.Leidinger.net> References: <20020125030717.62e1cf65.tadayuki@mediaone.net> <200201251123.g0PBNQu28749@Magelan.Leidinger.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hello again.
I said I won't bother you again,
but I might know the reason why you had the problem with the gnome update,
so I wrote this with a hope that this might make the situation clear.
One of the reason that PORTREVISION is not porperly working with gnome
might be that the gnome ports are using USE_GNOME to get the dependency.
USE_GNOME will pick up several LIB_DEPENDS definitions.
So if you want to bump PORTREVISION properly, you have to bump it
whenever one of the shlib's major version is bumped for USE_GNOME's
LIB_DEPENDS definitions. But I guess this was not the case.
So in a sense, what you said might be right.
gnome ports didn't get PORTREVISION bump properly.
And I think there might be several gnome ports which use recursive dependency
to get a shlib dependency which should've been explicit dependency.
On Fri, 25 Jan 2002 12:23:25 +0100 (CET)
Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> wrote:
> >> >> Sorry, I wanted to say: "If we decide to accept Mikhail's proposal, we
> >> >> have the possibility to determine which port needs a PORTREVISION bump
> >> >> just by looking at the dependency information."
> >> > That's a possibility. Not the current implementation.
> >> > The proposal is incomplete without the utility side changes.
> >>
> >> Sorry, but I can't see where Mikhail's proposal changes the behavior in
> >> this regard. Can you please explain it to me?
> > Previously you said 'we have the possibility'. It means we don't have it yet.
> > There is no tool to detect a need of PORTREVISION bump just by the dependency.
>
> ---snip---
> #!/bin/sh
....
> done
> ---snip---
Thanks for your effort. But is this the possibility that you mentioned?
I thought you were talking about more automated process.
i.e. PORTREVISION will be changed automaticaly whenever shlib version is bumped.
If you have to bump PORTREVISION manually, what's the point not to specify
shlib's version at the same time?
> > It does violate Porter's Handbook.
> > And it also breaks pkg_version and portversion's updates detection.
> > # Those tools are written based on the assumption we observe Porter's Handbook.
>
> Not bumping PORTREVISION does this, yes. But Mikhail's proposal isn't
> about bumping it or not.
Think again. You bump PORTREVISION, but not specify the shlib version.
What will happen? If there's old version of shlib installed,
the port will pick it up, and newer version will not be installed.
But the installed package will have bumped PORTREVISION.
His porposal doesn't make sense if you bump PORTREVISION.
> Just because port B is updated this doesn't mean I have to update it.
This shouldn't be default. If we want such behavior we should add
a knob IGNORE_SHLIB_VERSION or something.
> > And there will be several packages they have exactly same name and version,
> > but they depend on different major version of shlib.
>
> Not if the PORTREVISION gets bumped. Bumping the PORTREVISION is
> orthogonal to Mikhail's proposal.
See above.
> Then the maintainer of port A and/or the maintainer of port B did
> something wrong. A PORTREVISION bump is independend of Mikhail's
> proposal.
See above.
> > so installed package A still depend on old version of libB.so.
> > And new libB.so may include critical fix like security hole.
>
> How do you expect this to work if the library version of port B did not
> get updated when a security hole is fixed?
Think again. This is too easy.
> The "@pkgdep" line in packages contains ${PORTNAME}-${PORTVERSION}, so
> packages aren't affected.
So you want 'Joe user' to check '@pkgdep' line. That's user frendly!
To Mikhail:
Do you still think this is an improvement?
Regards,
--
Tadayuki OKADA
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?20020126222231.1c336cf3.tadayuki>