cvs commit: ports/textproc/libwpd Makefile distinfo

[Pav Lucistnik]

Mikhail Teterin píše v pá 06. 01. 2006 v 08:10 -0500:
> On Friday 06 January 2006 03:54 am, Pav Lucistnik wrote:

> = This looks like a larger design problem and I don't know from where to
> = start attacking it.
> 
> With other things a port's maintainer gets to craft his own LIB_DEPENDS
> as he wants to... USE_GNOME takes away that flexibility.

You must realize that USE_GNOME came into existence before the
LIB_DEPENDS without shlib version were even possible in the framework.
It was created for the single purpose of not having to touch 1000+ ports
each time the library number changes.

Now when you can solve this problem by not requiring shlib number, or by
specifying minimal package version, you don't have to use USE_GNOME.
The majority of USE_GNOME component just translates into the
dependencies, really. Only few have a non-trivial functionality (*hack
ones).

> It is not directly relevant either. If the goal is to minimize the
> amount of support requests, you may as well require the OS-reinstall
> before each gnome upgrade...

Actually, that would be much easier for majority of people than
attempting portupgrading it.

> = > Considering, that most software that has such version demands makes
> = > its own checks in the configure, there is no added safety at all...
> 
> = Oh no, we can't just let rely on configure checks. First, we never
> = want `make` to fail. Than we could go Slackware and forget the
> = dependencies in ports anyway.
> 
> `make' fails NOW -- in a much messier way. one starts building libwpd,
> it starts building a new libgsf, that starts building a new gconf. gconf
> tries to install, finds an existing gconf and refuses to install...
> Oops. make failed and an e-mail was dispatched to gnome@

That's some valid point, yes.

> Simply remove most (all?) of the major library requirements from the
> bsd.gnome.mk.

Now I'm a bit hesitant to do this. But I feel that replacing them with
minimal version numbers would be a good thing too.

I don't know what's the opinion of members of the FreeBSD GNOME Team, so
I can't speak for them.

-- 
Pav Lucistnik <pav at oook.cz>
              <pav at FreeBSD.org>

As to floating eyes, let them float :).
  - r.g.r.a
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: Toto je =?iso-8859-2?Q?digit=E1ln=EC?=
	=?ISO-8859-1?Q?_podepsan=E1?= =?iso-8859-2?Q?_=E8=E1st?=
	=?ISO-8859-1?Q?_zpr=E1vy?=
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/cvs-ports/attachments/20060106/bed74b7d/attachment.bin