Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 12:43:06 +0200 From: Jeremy Lea <reg@shale.csir.co.za> To: Alex Zepeda <garbanzo@hooked.net> Cc: Jacques Vidrine <n@nectar.com>, Dan Moschuk <dm@globalserve.net>, freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: GNOME Message-ID: <19990323124306.J61840@shale.csir.co.za> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9903202213100.88517-100000@zippy.dyn.ml.org>; from Alex Zepeda on Sat, Mar 20, 1999 at 10:15:16PM -0800 References: <199903210608.AAA59605@spawn.nectar.com> <Pine.BSF.4.05.9903202213100.88517-100000@zippy.dyn.ml.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi, [moved to -ports]. On Sat, Mar 20, 1999 at 10:15:16PM -0800, Alex Zepeda wrote: > Perhaps I picked some bad ports, gmc and balsa. gmc needed a little > tweaking (of the patches?!) to get itself built, and works as well as > expcted (it doesn't). Balsa OTOH wouldn't even compile. It seems to be > wanting version 0.4.9?!? the latest version available from www.balsa.net > was 0.4.6.2... even after telling it to depend on Gtk+ 1.2 it wouldn't > build. I'm not quite sure what the maintainer was thinking here. Please could you be more specific as to the problems with gmc. The misc/mc port does not contain any GNOME stuff and should be dependant on glib 1.2. x11-fm/gnomemc should depend on x11/gnomelibs, which will pick up gtk 1.2 as a dependancy. There shouldn't be any patching problems either. Although the version is now out of date, and needs to be updated to .27. I'll have some time early next month, hopefully by which point the bug fix releases of GNOME 1.0 have been done. The reason Balsa was not updated was that the 0.4.9 tarball disappeared from ftp.gnome.org for a bit, and it's now back. The port needs some minor changes to get it to build properly. There are a couple of other ports which fall into this group. The reason that most of the version numbers weren't bumped is that the development versions were coming so fast that we would have huge numbers by now. I only incremented all the GNOME 1.0 libs to .1 if they were at .0. All future changes will increment the shared lib versions by 1 for each time the port is updated or changed. It was a mistake not to do this for imlib, which has since been fixed. This won't work for ports which have BUILD or RUN depends though, as I found with the gettext port. Hopefully now we can stop tracking the development versions of GTK and GNOME, because these versions are pretty much garranteed to not be either forward or backward compatible, which is why we have so many GTK ports. To keep bumping the version numbers, and change all of the ports which depend on them, is a lot of work, especially when there are a few maintainers involved. I'm not sure how to indicate in the ports that the GNOME ports need to be treated as a group. The best way to rebuild these ports is to pkg_delete gnomelib-x.x.x, pkg_delete all the ports it lists as dependencies, and then build x11/gnome. Maybe someone else has a better plan... Regards, -Jeremy -- | ----------------------------------------------------- --+-- "What a crazy world we live in, | we save the whales yet support abortion" - MIC | ----------------------------------------------------- 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?19990323124306.J61840>