Quoting Alex Dupre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (from Wed, 06 Jun 2007 14:30:38 +0200):
Ion-Mihai Tetcu ha scritto:
Why ? We did this in the past for enough ports, we do it for
claws-mail-*, etc.
Do we bump every p5-* port when we update perl? No, but you are
supposed to update them. Here is even more complex: if I update php4,
why should php5 users update their extensions? There is no reason. And
only a minimal part of the extensions will effectively require an
update, so it's simpler to deal with them only when a breakage occurs.
As a data point: the claws-mail plugins are bumped because the plugins
don't startup when they are not recompiled. They contain the claws
mail version number and bail out if the compiled in one is not equal
to the version number of the currently running claws-mail. So anyone
using plugins has to update them on each claws-mail update. The
portrevision is bumped to trigger this explicitly. This way we also
get suitable packages (but I don't remember if this would be the case
anyway).
My advise would be to do the same with those ports, which show similar
behavior.
Regarding php and eaccelerator: I always recompile eaccelerator by
hand when I update php, so I would not mind if the revision of
eaccelerator would be incremented on each version bump of php
(disclaimer, I didn't follow this discussion and stumbled upon this
specific mail only by accident).
Bye,
Alexander.
--
Cthulhu for President!
(If you're tired of choosing the lesser of two evils.)
http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net: PGP ID = B0063FE7
http://www.FreeBSD.org netchild @ FreeBSD.org : PGP ID = 72077137
_______________________________________________
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
