Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 16:13:37 +0300 From: "Andrew Pantyukhin" <infofarmer@FreeBSD.org> To: "Mikhail Teterin" <mi+kde@aldan.algebra.com> Cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: SoC application: please comment! Message-ID: <cb5206420703190613s12a22402t6eda726ee7baf134@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <200703190826.20211@aldan> References: <200703190826.20211@aldan>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 3/19/07, Mikhail Teterin <mi+kde@aldan.algebra.com> wrote: > What I'd like to see added, is a flag, which would cause bsd.port.mk to simply > ignore the explicit shared libraries' major numbers in LIB_DEPENDS. > > In almost all cases requiring a specific number does not make sense (not from > a user's point of view, anyway). It only causes unneccessary rebuilds: > > * install mplayer, which uses libFOO.X > * wait a week > * update the ports-tree > * try to install vlc -- oops, because of the shlib number bump of libFOO, > got to rebuild the libFOO and the mplayer, which uses it. > > Of course, vlc would use libFOO.X just as well libFOO.X+1 -- in almost all > cases. So there is no point in _forcing_ the user to rebuild all that... > > The proposed knob would allow the users to ignore the numbers. I hope, of > course, that the flag will, eventually, become default... The problem is to find the minority(?) of cases when shlib bumps are significant and cause run-time quirks if not completed correctly.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?cb5206420703190613s12a22402t6eda726ee7baf134>