Hey ports guys, I wonder how you decide in what ports to bump revision numbers when there is a shared library version change in some port. I ask this with the very recent openldap24-client change in mind.
For example, all (perhaps almost all) KDE4 ports got revision bump. But libchk tells me that only kdepimlibs installed binaries that are linked with libldap-2.4.so. (even kdeartwork got bumped.) I realize that there is a certain benefit/easiness to just bumping revisions of all ports that record any kind of dependency (however indirect/weak) if only just in case. But there is also a cost/churn to that. That cost may not seem to be very significant comparing to potentially prevented problems, but when multiplied by number of all people upgrading their ports and packages it gives a different perspective on the (limited Earth) resources wasted. And also it looks like virtuoso port was missed - libchk tells me that its executables are linked to the ldap library. P.S. This kind of thinking may be applicable to the recommendation given in UPDATING as well. P.P.S. Things like this are probably best handled by specifying 'provides/requires' contracts for the ports/packages (e.g. provides libxxx.so.N, requires libyyy.so.M), but that's a different (and quite huge) story. -- Andriy Gapon _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
