Re[2]: Increase in the number of ports: upgrade xorg to 7.2...
On June 08, 2007 at 05:12PM Kris Kennaway wrote: [snip] > FYI, if you'd used an upgrade tool like portupgrade it would have been > seamless because portupgrade keeps the old library version around for > precisely this reason. Actually, I ended up using portmanager with the '-p' flag to force updating of all dependencies no matter how far down the dependency tree they were. -- Gerard ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Re[2]: Increase in the number of ports: upgrade xorg to 7.2...
In response to Thomas Dickey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 03:34:38PM -0400, Bill Moran wrote: > > > I am not totally convinced. If one small package is updated that is > > > depended on by 10 other package that in turn are depended on by a like > > > number of other packages, what has been really gained by breaking > > > everything into small bits? They may be easier to maintain; however > > > the impact on updating the system seems like it would be minimal. > > > > No. As long as the communication interface between modules (whether > > it be an API or something else) doesn't change, it's perfectly possible > > to update a single module without updating anything else. > > "as long as" is an assumption which I haven't seen any evidence that > xorg developers are willing to warrant. > > fwiw, they changed interface in the Xaw library a couple of years ago, > which required some a change to xterm. > > Absent any evidence that they're going to maintain stable interfaces, > this is just an assumption. Nay! Your dark thoughts and negative vibes will not deter my boundless optimism! I have faith that the xorg developers will prevail in their effort to create stable, consistent interfaces between modules! It's not an assumption, its OPTIMISM! -- Bill Moran http://www.potentialtech.com ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Re[2]: Increase in the number of ports: upgrade xorg to 7.2...
On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 03:34:38PM -0400, Bill Moran wrote: > > I am not totally convinced. If one small package is updated that is > > depended on by 10 other package that in turn are depended on by a like > > number of other packages, what has been really gained by breaking > > everything into small bits? They may be easier to maintain; however > > the impact on updating the system seems like it would be minimal. > > No. As long as the communication interface between modules (whether > it be an API or something else) doesn't change, it's perfectly possible > to update a single module without updating anything else. "as long as" is an assumption which I haven't seen any evidence that xorg developers are willing to warrant. fwiw, they changed interface in the Xaw library a couple of years ago, which required some a change to xterm. Absent any evidence that they're going to maintain stable interfaces, this is just an assumption. -- Thomas E. Dickey http://invisible-island.net ftp://invisible-island.net pgpKwRHAuHW1J.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Re[2]: Increase in the number of ports: upgrade xorg to 7.2...
In response to Gerard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On June 08, 2007 at 02:57PM [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > xorg is now 180-230 some-odd tiny packages (ports) > > instead of the old -clients, -server, -libraries blobs. > > > > It seems to work okay, and minor updates are far less > > strenuous. I give it five years to either prove itself or > > all the developers to go mad and sacrifice their firstborn > > in some wicked ritual to the sun-god. > > I am not totally convinced. If one small package is updated that is > depended on by 10 other package that in turn are depended on by a like > number of other packages, what has been really gained by breaking > everything into small bits? They may be easier to maintain; however > the impact on updating the system seems like it would be minimal. No. As long as the communication interface between modules (whether it be an API or something else) doesn't change, it's perfectly possible to update a single module without updating anything else. In practice, I've updated 5 or 6 little sub-ports of xorg 7 since I did the switch, and haven't had to rebuild all of xorg yet. -- Bill Moran http://www.potentialtech.com ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re[2]: Increase in the number of ports: upgrade xorg to 7.2...
On June 08, 2007 at 02:57PM [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > xorg is now 180-230 some-odd tiny packages (ports) > instead of the old -clients, -server, -libraries blobs. > > It seems to work okay, and minor updates are far less > strenuous. I give it five years to either prove itself or > all the developers to go mad and sacrifice their firstborn > in some wicked ritual to the sun-god. I am not totally convinced. If one small package is updated that is depended on by 10 other package that in turn are depended on by a like number of other packages, what has been really gained by breaking everything into small bits? They may be easier to maintain; however the impact on updating the system seems like it would be minimal. > Failure or not, the "modularity" will be adopted by microsoft > sometime around 2013, who will announce it as "The First > Commercial Product to Use a Wholley Modular Codebase" > except they won't spell "Wholley" with as much style. I always thought that, that was what 'DLL's' were all about. -- Gerard ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
