On Mon, 2007-05-07 at 18:26 -0400, Kris Kennaway wrote: > > >>>I dispute the correctness of this entry. The old libraries in > > >>>lib/compat/pkg are not linked to directly by new builds. The only > > >>>situation in which something might end up being linked to 2 versions > > >>>of the library is if it pulls in a library dependency from an existing > > >>>port that is still linked to the old library. In this situation the > > >>>build would be broken with or without lib/compat/pkg (in the latter > > >>>case, you have an installed port linked to a library that is entirely > > >>>missing, so that port will be nonfunctional). > > >>> > > >>>Kris > > > > > >I guess your silence means you agree with me here :) > > > > Yeah, I guess and unsure at the same time since I didn't write this entry. > > :-) > > OK.
I didn't write it either, but it holds some truth. Yes, not having the library at all would cause a build failure, but having multiple versions of the same library can lead to runtime failures. It's much easier to troubleshoot a missing .so that it is to hunt down strange runtime failures (usually). I'm not arguing for or against portmaster, or the "keeping old shared objects" functionality. I'm just putting this FAQ entry in context. Yes, perhaps it could be re-worded for clarity. Joe -- PGP Key : http://www.marcuscom.com/pgp.asc
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
