Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2013 14:18:48 +0400 From: Boris Samorodov <bsam@passap.ru> To: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org> Cc: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org, Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@FreeBSD.org>, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, bapt <bapt@etoilbsd.net>, bapt <baptiste.daroussin@gmail.com>, ports-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: RE : Re: svn commit: r320973 - head/audio/grip Message-ID: <51BC3F88.4060706@passap.ru> In-Reply-To: <20130615092043.GA47945@FreeBSD.org> References: <kqcoep27lv3xn9u9fa53omnt.1371285299440@email.android.com> <51BC2E7E.8030605@passap.ru> <20130615092043.GA47945@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
15.06.2013 13:20, Alexey Dokuchaev пишет:
> On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 01:06:06PM +0400, Boris Samorodov wrote:
>> The shlib ABI version was removed from LIB_DEPENDS and it was not
>> reflected at the log. So the question arises if it was intended.
>> Imho (yep, it's really imho) this change is serious enough to go
>> to the log.
>
> While I support you here on necessity of documenting every change in the
> commit log, dropping ABI versions from LIB_DEPENDS had been common practice
> for a while now, and can be forgiven.
-----
LIB_DEPENDS= id3-3.8.3:${PORTSDIR}/audio/id3lib \
- curl.6:${PORTSDIR}/ftp/curl
+ curl:${PORTSDIR}/ftp/curl
-----
Well, I'm not sure if the change was intended and it was not
documented. Hence my question. And why curl was changed while
id3 -- not? (BTW it's just a rhetoric question)
I don't blame Baptiste. I was just curious if that change was intended.
And as a side note, if that change was logged, the question wouldn't
occur. As simple as that.
> We have much worse examples of
> commits documented with one-liner log (which is bogus most of the times);
> now, *that* is a problem. :(
+1 :-(
>> Second, the package definitely had changed. The dependency had
>> changed from libcurl.so.6 to libcurl.so. And this is recorded
>> at the package.
>
> I didn't know we're recording fully expanded shlibs in +CONTENTS. Library
> versions are recorded inside the binaries,
Yes, that means that a package (one or more binaries) has changed.
> but in this case, dropping them
> from LIB_DEPENDS should be no-op.
Is it because the dependency is more wide? If yes, than thanks, I need
just this information: "It is not a significant change for the package."
Got it, thanks!
--
WBR, Boris Samorodov (bsam)
FreeBSD Committer, http://www.FreeBSD.org The Power To Serve
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?51BC3F88.4060706>