On Jun 10, 2010, at 5:28 PM, Jack Howarth wrote: > On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 11:50:46AM -0700, Toby Peterson wrote: >> On Jun 10, 2010, at 11:26 AM, Jack Howarth wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 06:23:08PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: >>>> On 2010-06-10 11:50:49 -0400, Jack Howarth wrote: >>>>> Exactly the point. MacPorts sorely needs the same sort of split-off >>>>> feature as fink where a libmpfr2-shlibs/libmpfr3-shlibs split-off >>>>> package could contain the required runtime shared libraries which >>>>> can co-exist but the main libmpfr2/libmpfr3 packages with the >>>>> development headers and shared lib symlinks would conflict. The >>>>> absence of such a capability in MacPorts is a major limitation >>>>> to proper package migrations. One simply can't expect to force >>>>> all packages in mass to migrate to new soversions of a support >>>>> library, Some backward compatibility support has to be retained >>>>> through co-existing shlibs split-off packages. >>>> >>>> Note however that in the case of MPFR, ABI breakage is rare. IIRC, >>>> ABI compatibility had been preserved since November 2004. >>> >>> Yes, but that is tangential to the fact that any soversion bump for >>> a support library in MacPorts currently forces a mass migration to >>> the new version since there is no support for co-existing shlibs >>> split-off packages with conflicting main development packages. >>> Hoping for ABI stability isn't a solution. >> >> Of course we support that (sort of, since we don't have "packages" in >> MacPorts). I'm not sure what your complaint is - Vincent's initial email >> simply stated that MPFR is not going to be updated immediately. >> >> If there is a pressing need for both versions to be available, we can >> certainly do the work required. > > My complaint is general in that the absence of co-existing shlibs packages > in MacPorts is a major design deficiency.
I don't understand what you're trying to say. Do you mean a design deficiency in MacPorts itself? If so, that makes no sense - ports can install files anywhere. If you're referring to the "design" of various Portfiles, then I suppose you're right, but they're easy enough to modify if necessary. Hardly what I'd call "major" ... - Toby _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-dev
