On Mar 25, 2012, at 10:26 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>
> On Mar 25, 2012, at 11:28, Eric Cronin wrote:
>
>> On Mar 25, 2012, at 4:01 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>> Revision
>>> 91179
>>> Author
>>> [email protected]
>>> Date
>>> 2012-03-25 01:01:20 -0700 (Sun, 25 Mar 2012)
>>> Log Message
>>>
>>> yum: apply changes from ryandesign
>>> Modified Paths
>>>
>>> • trunk/dports/sysutils/yum/Portfile
>>> Diff
>>> -depends_lib lib:librpm:rpm port:python24 port:py-celementtree
>>> port:py-urlgrabber port:py-libxml2 port:py-yum-metadata-parser
>>> port:py-iniparse port:py-pygpgme
>>> -depends_build port:intltool port:py24-nose
>>>
>>> +depends_lib port:rpm
>>
>> Don't all the various versioned rpmxy ports also provide a librpm.dylib? I
>> think they do which means they should all conflict with one another (they
>> don't seem to right now)
>
This was replied privately: each minor release has librpm-X.Y.dylib.
There is no API/ABI compatibility promised (though rpm's API changes
rather slowly).
There is means to version every path for full coexistence (though
that is massive overkill for many reasons including lack of interest).
> If that's so, what's the purpose of offering the separate ports at all?
rpm51 was the last version that has an rpmdb format
compatible with what has been used for years.
rpm52 is likely unused and unneeded.
rpm53 (just added) switches to ACID durability.
rpm54 is current development, releases more often than monthly.
Likely more than you ever wanted to know about RPM.
>
>> and a path-based depends_lib like before is appropriate
>
> A path:-based depends_lib would be ok. a lib:-based depends_lib is not ok
> because that would allow a non-MacPorts librpm installed in a system
> directory to satisfy the dependency, and we don't want that.
>
Again you are reacting to a non-existent fact:
There is no librpm.dylib being installed.
73 de Jeff
_______________________________________________
macports-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-dev
