Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      12 Mar 2002 10:46:46 +0200
From:      Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@FreeBSD.org>
To:        Akinori MUSHA <knu@iDaemons.org>
Cc:        MANTANI Nobutaka <nobutaka@nobutaka.com>, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, ports@FreeBSD.org
Subject:   Re: cvs commit: ports/graphics/autotrace Makefile ports/graphics/graphviz         Makefile ports/graphics/libafterimage Makefile         ports/graphics/librsvg Makefile ports/graphics/libwmf Makefile         ports/graphics/sdl_ttf Makefile ports/print/ft2demos Makefile ...
Message-ID:  <1015921012.255.1.camel@notebook>
In-Reply-To: <86ofhuabay.wl@archon.local.idaemons.org>
References:  <200203111725.g2BHPVF52248@freefall.freebsd.org> <86adte28qw.wl@excalibur.nobutaka.com> <3C8D0B5D.3186A73D@FreeBSD.org> <86r8mqajfe.wl@archon.local.idaemons.org> <1015886047.1763.26.camel@notebook>  <86ofhuabay.wl@archon.local.idaemons.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help

--=-O+MplAdNk+l9WUs2p5hJ
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, 2002-03-12 at 02:18, Akinori MUSHA wrote:
> At 12 Mar 2002 00:34:19 +0200,
> sobomax wrote:
> > As I said earlier, what we really need is the feature that will track
> > ABI-incompatible upgrades and when such upgrade is performed bump
> > PORTREVISION of all dependent ports automagically. Actually I've alread=
y
> > described prototype of such feature and instead of spending out time
> > arguing whether or not we need to bump PORTREVISION on 10 out of tens o=
r
> > even hundreds ports that use freetype (waste of time IMO) in the long
> > run we are better off to implement such feature and forget about it.
>=20
> That sounds good, but aren't you supposed to help the users today
> before talking about the future?  It is always innocent users who
> suffer from developers' unthoughtful misjudgement.  Remind that your
> "wasting" time will help a bunch of users' and save their time a lot.
>=20
> While that feature would be useful in the future and it is hard to do
> the PORTREVISION bumps for each and every dependant port, how about
> just doing with most popular ports such as ImageMagick/libwmf, gd/gd2
> and XFree86-4-libraries for the moment?  It might be good enough for
> most users.  If you don't object, shall I do it tonight?

Yes, please do.

> > In a nutshell idea is to assign each port with something called
> > PKGABIVERSION (>=3D0, non-decreasing), which will need to be increased
> > each time when some ABI-incompatible change is committed (e.g. shlib
> > version bump) and make PKGREVISION of each port be an arithmetical sum
> > of PKGABIVERSION's of all its dependencies and its own PORTREVISION.
> > Actual implementation I'm leaving as an exercise for the reader, becaus=
e
> > I do not use portupgrade by myself and therefore have no interest in
> > doing it on my own. For me `pkg_delete -r freetype2\* ; cd
> > /usr/ports/x11/gnome ; make reinstall' is absolutely sufficient.
>=20
> No, I'm not talking about you but ordinary users.  You are saying
> what.. "People, just delete and reinstall everything, because I'm
> absolutely fine with it." ?
>=20
> Because you are the one who committed the upgrade, you surely know
> exactly what is happening and how to handle the situation.  But how
> about users?  They won't even know something significant is happening
> until they happen to upgrade freetype2 and face the serious library
> dependency breakage.  By not bumping the dependant ports'
> PORTREVISIONs, you are taking away the chance for them to "smell"
> something significant, or at least you are making it unable for
> pkg_version users to properly upgrade packages the way they usually do
> on a weekly basis or so.
>=20
>=20
> As for portupgrade, honestly I don't care a pin if you use it, if you
> like it or if you take it into account when maintaining ports and
> altering the ports infrastructure.  I'm providing users the tool suite
> because I want to allow them to handle difficult situations by
> themselves even though the ports system is badly broken and even
> though developers including me often do not do things properly where
> they are supposed to.
>=20
> I believe ports (and probably any tool/system for users) should not be
> something you get used to using inconveniently.  You should not assume
> people can or should live with inconvenience that is avoidable if we
> developers work just a little bit harder and wiser.
>=20
>=20
> P.S.
>=20
> I value your continuous efforts on ports and like your ideas like the
> above.  Maybe I'll comment on some of them later this week if I can
> take the time.

Thanks!

-Maxim

--=-O+MplAdNk+l9WUs2p5hJ
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (FreeBSD)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQA8jblzoNu5t4iCBa8RAg/3AJ4pc0BChcM7Pv/uXiRgBhGZUN6SlACfaFH7
WpktWWIfHWMCsJwvs9AR2IE=
=P+r6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=-O+MplAdNk+l9WUs2p5hJ--


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?1015921012.255.1.camel>