Re: leaner and meaner www/firefox

["Jeremy Messenger" <mezz7_(_at_)_cox_(_dot_)_net>]

On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 14:38:07 -0500, Jeremy Messenger <mezz7_(_at_)_cox_(_dot_)_net> wrote:

> On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 13:12:01 -0500, Mikhail Teterin  
> <Mikhail_(_dot_)_Teterin_(_at_)_murex_(_dot_)_com> wrote:
>
> > > package (pkg_add), wouldn't you get error when run apps for can't find  
> > > to  
> > > link foobar.so.5 when you have foobar.so.4? I don't use package, but  
> > > wouldn't package (without library version in Makefile) failed to check  
> > > for
> > > need foobar.so.5 and go ahead install it because there was no library
> > > version info? With the library version would check and give the error
> > > earlier.
> >
> > No... See bsd.port.mk's cvs log:
> >
> > revision 1.424
> > date: 2002/09/19 00:16:39;  author: kris;  state: Exp;  lines: +72 -39
> > [...]
> > * [1] Registering real dependencies: dependency registration looks at  
> > the
> >   currently-installed version of the dependency and registers that  
> > version,
> >   instead of registering the version in ports which may be newer than
> >   what is installed.
> > [...]
> >
> > (I recall pushing for this and submitting my own version of this  
> > change, but
> > sobomax was part of portmgr and I was not...)
>
> Either above still doesn't explain clear or I don't understand it clear.  
> Register version of what?  PORTVERSION or library? If it's library, then  
> how does it check if Makefile doesn't has any of library version? It  
> said, 'dependency registration looks at the currently-installed version  
> of the dependency and registers that version'. What about that  
> currently-installed (without have library version in Makefile) has  
> foobar.so.4 but that new package (without have library version in  
> Makefile) registered on currently-installed, but it still needs  
> foobar.so.5?

http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/porters-handbook/makefile-naming.html#MAKEFILE-NAMING-REVEPOCH

=============================================
Version bump of a port's shared library dependency (in this case, someone  
trying to install the old package after installing a newer version of the  
dependency will fail since it will look for the old libfoo.x instead of  
libfoo.(x+1)).
=============================================

It's what I was trying to explain. If library doesn't need to be bump, but  
it does then hack it like we did with gettext, pango and etc recently to  
force them to not bump when it is not need. Current, we have a new module  
in our bsd.gnome.mk at MarcusCom CVS for test that will control library  
version on our own and bump it when it is need.

> > Try it and let's get this one over with...
> >
> > 	-mi


--
mezz7_(_at_)_cox_(_dot_)_net  -  mezz_(_at_)_FreeBSD_(_dot_)_org
FreeBSD GNOME Team
http://www.FreeBSD.org/gnome/  -  gnome_(_at_)_FreeBSD_(_dot_)_org
_______________________________________________
freebsd-gnome_(_at_)_freebsd_(_dot_)_org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-gnome
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-gnome-unsubscribe_(_at_)_freebsd_(_dot_)_org"