On 29 August 2010 01:11, Rob Farmer <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 2:28 AM, Chris Rees <[email protected]> wrote: >> 2010/8/27 Alexey Dokuchaev <[email protected]>: >>> On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 09:53:32PM -0700, Rob Farmer wrote: >>>> This breaks math/scilab (which is the only dependency in the ports >>>> tree). Unfortunately, the author of jgraphx seems to completely >>>> disregard backwards compatibility and changes the API in virtually >>>> every release. >>>> >>>> I tried to patch Scilab based on their git repository (which has >>>> support for 1.4.0.1), but hundreds of revisions have passed and they >>>> have rearranged their tree a bit and added/removed some files, so it >>>> didn't go well. >>>> >>>> IMHO, we need to either create a separate jgraphx-scilab port or keep >>>> this in sync with Scilab (this is what Debian, Ubuntu, and Gentoo are >>>> doing). >>> >>> Considering Scilab is the only consumer of jgraphx, it seems having >>> special port would be an overkill. I think we should keep the two in >>> sync, and probably work with upstream maintainers of both projects to >>> improve compatibility and API inheritance in the future. Separate port >>> of jgraphx-scilab is palliative solution, i.e. it simply increases the >>> entropy, not solving the underlying problem. >>> >>> ./danfe >> >> >> Since Scilab is the only consumer of jgraphx, I don't mind reverting it. >> >> Actually, I wrote that while trying to repair Scilab myself, so if you >> want maintainership of jgraphx too, that's fine. > > I don't want to feel like I'm stealing your ports, but I do think it > would be a good idea to have them maintained together. > >> >> Alternatively you could have it as another distfile in Scilab rather >> than depending on the port.... > > I hadn't thought about this, but it may actually be the best solution > - as far as I'm aware, the reason for having libraries in separate > ports is to allow multiple applications to use the same copy, but > given the instability of the jgraphx API, I think it is unlikely that > multiple ports could depend on one common version of jgraphx (at least > without significant patching), so the benefits of having a jgraphx > port are probably limited. Thoughts? >
You're not stealing my ports, you'd be taking a logical step to fixing the madness! You are welcome to jgraphx if you want it, though having thought about the instability, maybe the alternative distfile could be a good solution. Have a look at the attached patch; the only thing i haven't done is told configure it's not a problem that jgraphx.jar isn't there yet... Of course, jgraphx is still a useful port for people who want to use it themselves in their own programming; there are plenty of other ports that aren't depended on by anything else! Chris
scilab.diff
Description: Binary data
_______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
