Re: Binary packages not rebuilding against updated libraries

On Thu, 3 May 2018 11:54:23 + Artur Szostak wrote: > Now what would be a really powerful tool, would be something that > can check that the following mistake was made: the major number is > not changed correctly for shared libraries that are in fact not > compatible

Re: Binary packages not rebuilding against updated libraries

>>> Not quite. I'm noting that the package version isn't a reliable >>> indication of the ABI version, and neither (sadly, see the current >>> protobuf issues and the issues with LibreSSL) is the library dylib >>> name. Thus I'm proposing to have an internal ABI revision number that >>> we can use

Re: Binary packages not rebuilding against updated libraries

On Apr 26, 2018, at 10:16, Ryan Schmidt wrote: >> Not quite. I'm noting that the package version isn't a reliable >> indication of the ABI version, and neither (sadly, see the current >> protobuf issues and the issues with LibreSSL) is the library dylib >> name. Thus I'm proposing to have an

Re: Binary packages not rebuilding against updated libraries

On Thu, 26 Apr 2018 19:17:27 +0200 Rainer Müller wrote: > On 2018-04-26 18:55, Perry E. Metzger wrote: > > On Fri, 27 Apr 2018 02:46:43 +1000 Joshua Root > > wrote: > >>> So what might work would be trying out installing the archives > >>> in a sandbox

Re: Binary packages not rebuilding against updated libraries

On 2018-04-26 18:55, Perry E. Metzger wrote: > On Fri, 27 Apr 2018 02:46:43 +1000 Joshua Root > wrote: >>> So what might work would be trying out installing the archives in >>> a sandbox and using the same mechanism that's used locally before >>> triggering a rebuild? >> >>

Re: Binary packages not rebuilding against updated libraries

On 2018-4-27 02:55 , Perry E. Metzger wrote: > On Fri, 27 Apr 2018 02:46:43 +1000 Joshua Root > wrote: >>> So what might work would be trying out installing the archives in >>> a sandbox and using the same mechanism that's used locally before >>> triggering a rebuild? >> >>

Re: Binary packages not rebuilding against updated libraries

On Fri, 27 Apr 2018 02:46:43 +1000 Joshua Root wrote: > > So what might work would be trying out installing the archives in > > a sandbox and using the same mechanism that's used locally before > > triggering a rebuild? > > Sounds like a plan? >

Re: Binary packages not rebuilding against updated libraries

On 2018-4-27 02:14 , Perry E. Metzger wrote: > On Fri, 27 Apr 2018 01:09:49 +1000 Joshua Root > wrote: >> On 2018-4-27 01:03 , Ryan Schmidt wrote: >>> >>> On Apr 26, 2018, at 10:00, Perry E. Metzger wrote: >>> Well, right now we're manually bumping "revision" in

Re: Binary packages not rebuilding against updated libraries

On Fri, 27 Apr 2018 01:09:49 +1000 Joshua Root wrote: > On 2018-4-27 01:03 , Ryan Schmidt wrote: > > > > On Apr 26, 2018, at 10:00, Perry E. Metzger wrote: > > > >> Well, right now we're manually bumping "revision" in dependent > >> ports when we upgrade a port that is

Re: Binary packages not rebuilding against updated libraries

On Apr 26, 2018, at 01:03, Jan Stary wrote: > BTW, what's with the version numbers in e.g. > otool -L /opt/local/bin/openssl: > /opt/local/lib/libssl.45.dylib (compatibility version 46.0.0, current version > 46.1.0) > > libssl.45.dylib is what the vanilla tarball itself produces. > Where

Re: Binary packages not rebuilding against updated libraries

On Apr 26, 2018, at 00:48, Jan Stary wrote: > On Apr 26 03:16:37, Rainer Mueller wrote: >> On 2018-04-26 00:11, Jan Stary wrote: >>> On Apr 24 09:31:04, ken.cunningham.web...@gmail.com wrote: Portfile authors need to manually "revbump" the library's dependent ports when supporting

Re: Binary packages not rebuilding against updated libraries

On Apr 26, 2018, at 10:12, Perry E. Metzger wrote: > On Thu, 26 Apr 2018 10:03:59 -0500 Ryan Schmidt wrote: >> On Apr 26, 2018, at 10:00, Perry E. Metzger wrote: >> >>> On Thu, 26 Apr 2018 23:54:49 +1000 Joshua Root wrote: > So rather than just guessing based on things like major version

Re: Binary packages not rebuilding against updated libraries

On 2018-04-26, at 8:09 AM, Joshua Root wrote: > Detecting this situation and rebuilding locally is automatic. Actually > increasing the revision of the dependents so updated archives are made > available is not. There's next years GSOC project for you :> Ken

Re: Binary packages not rebuilding against updated libraries

On Thu, 26 Apr 2018 10:03:59 -0500 Ryan Schmidt wrote: > On Apr 26, 2018, at 10:00, Perry E. Metzger wrote: > > > On Thu, 26 Apr 2018 23:54:49 +1000 Joshua Root wrote: > >>> So rather than just guessing based on things like major version > >>> of a library whether

Re: Binary packages not rebuilding against updated libraries

On 2018-4-27 01:03 , Ryan Schmidt wrote: > > On Apr 26, 2018, at 10:00, Perry E. Metzger wrote: > >> Well, right now we're manually bumping "revision" in dependent ports >> when we upgrade a port that is depended on, right? This seems to >> indicate that the current way isn't automatic. Or maybe

Re: Binary packages not rebuilding against updated libraries

On Apr 26, 2018, at 10:00, Perry E. Metzger wrote: > On Thu, 26 Apr 2018 23:54:49 +1000 Joshua Root wrote: >>> So rather than just guessing based on things like major version >>> of a library whether dependents need to be bumped, I would >>> suggest we add an "abiversion" keyword. Changing it in

Re: Binary packages not rebuilding against updated libraries

On Thu, 26 Apr 2018 23:54:49 +1000 Joshua Root wrote: > > So rather than just guessing based on things like major version > > of a library whether dependents need to be bumped, I would > > suggest we add an "abiversion" keyword. Changing it in any way > > would imply that ports

Re: Binary packages not rebuilding against updated libraries

On 2018-04-26 15:36, Perry E. Metzger wrote: > Not sure. I did come up with a better solution for the ABI bump > problem, though, and wanted to run it by you. > > So rather than just guessing based on things like major version of a > library whether dependents need to be bumped, I would suggest

Re: Binary packages not rebuilding against updated libraries

On Wed, 25 Apr 2018 21:24:43 -0500 Ryan Schmidt wrote: > I'm not working on this problem. There are far too many other > things that I already intend to be working on. My questions were > just meant to prompt thought about whether MacPorts currently > provides the

Re: Binary packages not rebuilding against updated libraries

On 2018-04-26 07:48, Jan Stary wrote: > On Apr 26 03:16:37, rai...@macports.org wrote: >> On 2018-04-26 00:11, Jan Stary wrote: >>> On Apr 24 09:31:04, ken.cunningham.web...@gmail.com wrote: Portfile authors need to manually "revbump" the library's dependent ports when supporting

Re: Binary packages not rebuilding against updated libraries

On 2018-04-26 08:03, Jan Stary wrote: >> >> For comparison, the OpenBSD port system has resigned on upstreams' >> library versioning, and versions the libraries itself. For example, >> in audio/libsndfile (1.0.28): >> >> SHARED_LIBS += sndfile 6.0 # .1.28 >> >> and it installs

Re: Binary packages not rebuilding against updated libraries

> On Apr 25, 2018, at 22:48, Jan Stary wrote: > > The packages that were installed before get rebuilt > with port rev-upgrade, automatically, > without anyone touching their Portfile. Well the idea is that download a prebuilt packaged binary, not revupgrade and build them all

Re: Binary packages not rebuilding against updated libraries

> > For comparison, the OpenBSD port system has resigned on upstreams' > library versioning, and versions the libraries itself. For example, > in audio/libsndfile (1.0.28): > > SHARED_LIBS += sndfile 6.0 # .1.28 > > and it installs /usr/local/lib/libsndfile.so.6.0. BTW, what's with

Re: Binary packages not rebuilding against updated libraries

On Apr 26 03:16:37, rai...@macports.org wrote: > On 2018-04-26 00:11, Jan Stary wrote: > > On Apr 24 09:31:04, ken.cunningham.web...@gmail.com wrote: > >> Portfile authors need to manually "revbump" > >> the library's dependent ports when > >> supporting libraries change significantly. > >> It's

Re: Binary packages not rebuilding against updated libraries

On 26 April 2018 at 00:34, Ryan Schmidt wrote: > On Apr 25, 2018, at 17:14, Jan Stary wrote: >> >> Keep a record of what depends on what (as packaging managers do). >> If A depends on B, and B has been rebuilt, reduild A too. >> No "revision bump"; port A as such has not changed. > > MacPorts does

Re: Binary packages not rebuilding against updated libraries

I'm not working on this problem. There are far too many other things that I already intend to be working on. My questions were just meant to prompt thought about whether MacPorts currently provides the information required to implement the feature. My belief is that it does not, but I am not

Re: Binary packages not rebuilding against updated libraries

On 2018-04-26 00:11, Jan Stary wrote: > On Apr 24 09:31:04, ken.cunningham.web...@gmail.com wrote: >> Portfile authors need to manually "revbump" >> the library's dependent ports when >> supporting libraries change significantly. >> It's not automatically figured out by MacPorts. > > Wait, what?

Re: Binary packages not rebuilding against updated libraries

On Apr 25, 2018, at 17:14, Jan Stary wrote: > On Apr 25 10:34:47, Ryan Schmidt wrote: > >> On Apr 25, 2018, at 09:02, Perry E. Metzger wrote: >>> On Tue, 24 Apr 2018 09:31:04 -0700 Ken Cunningham wrote: Portfile authors need to manually "revbump" the library's dependent ports when

Re: Binary packages not rebuilding against updated libraries

On Apr 25 15:14:56, pmetz...@macports.org wrote: > On Thu, 26 Apr 2018 01:46:27 +1000 Joshua Root > wrote: > > On 2018-4-26 01:34 , Ryan Schmidt wrote: > > > > > > On Apr 25, 2018, at 09:02, Perry E. Metzger wrote: > > >> On Tue, 24 Apr 2018 09:31:04 -0700 Ken Cunningham

Re: Binary packages not rebuilding against updated libraries

On Apr 25 10:34:47, ryandes...@macports.org wrote: > > On Apr 25, 2018, at 09:02, Perry E. Metzger wrote: > > On Tue, 24 Apr 2018 09:31:04 -0700 Ken Cunningham wrote: > >> Portfile authors need to manually "revbump" the library's dependent > >> ports when supporting libraries change

Re: Binary packages not rebuilding against updated libraries

On Apr 24 09:31:04, ken.cunningham.web...@gmail.com wrote: > Portfile authors need to manually "revbump" > the library's dependent ports when > supporting libraries change significantly. > It's not automatically figured out by MacPorts. Wait, what? I'm still relatively new to MP and this seems a

Re: Binary packages not rebuilding against updated libraries

On Wed, 25 Apr 2018 14:40:55 -0500 Ryan Schmidt wrote: > On Apr 25, 2018, at 14:14, Perry E. Metzger wrote: > > > I don't know that this is needed. As I noted, there are other > > package systems that just note that they have to rebuild > > dependents if a package they

Re: Binary packages not rebuilding against updated libraries

On Apr 25, 2018, at 14:14, Perry E. Metzger wrote: > I don't know that this is needed. As I noted, there are other package > systems that just note that they have to rebuild dependents if a > package they depend on has a major version bump. > > Or maybe I don't understand the problem well

Re: Binary packages not rebuilding against updated libraries

On Thu, 26 Apr 2018 01:46:27 +1000 Joshua Root wrote: > On 2018-4-26 01:34 , Ryan Schmidt wrote: > > > > On Apr 25, 2018, at 09:02, Perry E. Metzger wrote: > >> On Tue, 24 Apr 2018 09:31:04 -0700 Ken Cunningham wrote: > >>> Portfile authors need to manually "revbump" the

Re: Binary packages not rebuilding against updated libraries

On Wed, 25 Apr 2018 10:34:47 -0500 Ryan Schmidt wrote: > On Apr 25, 2018, at 09:02, Perry E. Metzger wrote: > > On Tue, 24 Apr 2018 09:31:04 -0700 Ken Cunningham wrote: > >> Portfile authors need to manually "revbump" the library's > >> dependent ports when supporting

Re: Binary packages not rebuilding against updated libraries

On Apr 25, 2018, at 09:02, Perry E. Metzger wrote: > On Tue, 24 Apr 2018 09:31:04 -0700 Ken Cunningham wrote: >> Portfile authors need to manually "revbump" the library's dependent >> ports when supporting libraries change significantly. >> >> It's not automatically figured out by MacPorts. > >

Re: Binary packages not rebuilding against updated libraries

On Tue, 24 Apr 2018 09:31:04 -0700 Ken Cunningham wrote: > Portfile authors need to manually "revbump" the library's dependent > ports when supporting libraries change significantly. > > It's not automatically figured out by MacPorts. Do we have a Trac issue for

Re: Binary packages not rebuilding against updated libraries

On Apr 24, 2018, at 11:37, Artur Szostak wrote: >>> So then there is a bug from what I understand, or cfitsio in MacPorts is >>> being built incorrectly. Compare file names for the newer Cfitsio: >>> /opt/local/lib/libcfitsio.6.3.44.dylib >>> /opt/local/lib/libcfitsio.6.dylib ->

Re: Binary packages not rebuilding against updated libraries

On 2018-4-25 02:37 , Artur Szostak wrote: >>> So then there is a bug from what I understand, or cfitsio in MacPorts is >>> being built incorrectly. Compare file names for the newer Cfitsio: >>> /opt/local/lib/libcfitsio.6.3.44.dylib >>> /opt/local/lib/libcfitsio.6.dylib ->

Re: Binary packages not rebuilding against updated libraries

>> So then there is a bug from what I understand, or cfitsio in MacPorts is >> being built incorrectly. Compare file names for the newer Cfitsio: >> /opt/local/lib/libcfitsio.6.3.44.dylib >> /opt/local/lib/libcfitsio.6.dylib -> libcfitsio.6.3.44.dylib (symlink) >> and the older Cfitsio: >>

Re: Binary packages not rebuilding against updated libraries

On 2018-4-25 02:31 , Ken Cunningham wrote: > > On 2018-04-24, at 9:05 AM, Artur Szostak wrote: >> >> So then there is a bug from what I understand, or cfitsio in MacPorts is >> being built incorrectly. Compare file names for the newer Cfitsio: >> /opt/local/lib/libcfitsio.6.3.44.dylib >>

Re: Binary packages not rebuilding against updated libraries

> Portfile authors need to manually "revbump" the library's dependent ports > when supporting libraries change significantly. > > It's not automatically figured out by MacPorts. > The Portfiles for cfitsio had two different versions. So I do not think that is the issue.

Re: Binary packages not rebuilding against updated libraries

On 2018-4-25 02:05 , Artur Szostak wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I have a Portfile for a library (called CPL) that was linked against >>> Cfitsio from a week ago. Cfitsio was updated very recently. What I expect >>> is that during the installation of CPL, MacPorts is able to figure out that >>>

Re: Binary packages not rebuilding against updated libraries

On 2018-04-24, at 9:05 AM, Artur Szostak wrote: > > So then there is a bug from what I understand, or cfitsio in MacPorts is > being built incorrectly. Compare file names for the newer Cfitsio: > /opt/local/lib/libcfitsio.6.3.44.dylib > /opt/local/lib/libcfitsio.6.dylib ->

Re: Binary packages not rebuilding against updated libraries

>> Hi, >> >> I have a Portfile for a library (called CPL) that was linked against Cfitsio >> from a week ago. Cfitsio was updated very recently. What I expect is that >> during the installation of CPL, MacPorts is able to figure out that Cfitsio >> changed and that CPL needs to be rebuilt.

Re: Binary packages not rebuilding against updated libraries

On 2018-4-25 01:25 , Artur Szostak wrote: > Hi, > > I have a Portfile for a library (called CPL) that was linked against Cfitsio > from a week ago. Cfitsio was updated very recently. What I expect is that > during the installation of CPL, MacPorts is able to figure out that Cfitsio > changed

Binary packages not rebuilding against updated libraries

Hi, I have a Portfile for a library (called CPL) that was linked against Cfitsio from a week ago. Cfitsio was updated very recently. What I expect is that during the installation of CPL, MacPorts is able to figure out that Cfitsio changed and that CPL needs to be rebuilt. However, during the