On Fri, 06 Jan 2006 07:20:51 -0600, Pav Lucistnik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Mikhail Teterin píše v pá 06. 01. 2006 v 08:10 -0500:
On Friday 06 January 2006 03:54 am, Pav Lucistnik wrote:
= This looks like a larger design problem and I don't know from where to
= start attacking it.
With other things a port's maintainer gets to craft his own LIB_DEPENDS
as he wants to... USE_GNOME takes away that flexibility.
You must realize that USE_GNOME came into existence before the
LIB_DEPENDS without shlib version were even possible in the framework.
It was created for the single purpose of not having to touch 1000+ ports
each time the library number changes.
Now when you can solve this problem by not requiring shlib number, or by
specifying minimal package version, you don't have to use USE_GNOME.
The majority of USE_GNOME component just translates into the
dependencies, really. Only few have a non-trivial functionality (*hack
ones).
It is not directly relevant either. If the goal is to minimize the
amount of support requests, you may as well require the OS-reinstall
before each gnome upgrade...
Actually, that would be much easier for majority of people than
attempting portupgrading it.
= > Considering, that most software that has such version demands makes
= > its own checks in the configure, there is no added safety at all...
= Oh no, we can't just let rely on configure checks. First, we never
= want `make` to fail. Than we could go Slackware and forget the
= dependencies in ports anyway.
`make' fails NOW -- in a much messier way. one starts building libwpd,
it starts building a new libgsf, that starts building a new gconf. gconf
tries to install, finds an existing gconf and refuses to install...
Oops. make failed and an e-mail was dispatched to gnome@
That's some valid point, yes.
Simply remove most (all?) of the major library requirements from the
bsd.gnome.mk.
Now I'm a bit hesitant to do this. But I feel that replacing them with
minimal version numbers would be a good thing too.
I don't know what's the opinion of members of the FreeBSD GNOME Team, so
I can't speak for them.
That's fine with me when pkg_add is broke^H^H^H^H^featureless (doesn't
check library version before install). The gsf:1.6 stuff sound like a good
idea, btw.
Cheers,
Mezz
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
FreeBSD GNOME Team
http://www.FreeBSD.org/gnome/ - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
