On Jan 16, 2006, at 9:47 PM, Daniel E. Macks wrote:
Daniel Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:On Jan 16, 2006, at 7:32 PM, TheSin wrote:On 16-Jan-06, at 5:07 PM, Daniel Johnson wrote:Is it safe to assume that Christian Swinehart is MIA?Yes.I'd like to update pcre since fink's version (4.5) is pretty ancient and I've been using the latest version (6.4) for a few months now with no issues. [...]pcre appears to follow the freetype model of binary compatibility.
Freetype? Ick! It burns! Maybe if I back away slowly and don't make eye contact...
Bleh. I didn't realize that. Scratch that idea.
Compared to 4.5, 6.4 adds new things to the public API/ABI (new functions, new elements in structs, new #defines and wider datatypes for other #defines). However, it appears to use the same install_name and does not appear to increment the compatibility_version. Granted, they don't change existing prototypes, and they add to the end of structs, so things compiled against old would work with new and things compiled against new would work with old (as long as they don't use any new stuff). But we're just askin' for user-land breakage unless compat is incremented or a different install_name is used.Is there any reasonably simple way I can test this?I think your email to -devel just did:)
So if I do this, it should be a new package with a different install_name, compat version, and a subdir of lib, right? Like (shudder) freetype219? Maybe it's not worth it...
-- Daniel Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP public key: http://homepage.mac.com/danielj7/publickey.txt
PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
