cvs commit: ports/devel/adime Makefile ports/x11-wm/icewm Makefile ports/graphics/scr2png Makefile ports/x11/xbindkeys Makefile

Alexey Dokuchaev danfe at
Sun Feb 19 16:45:29 UTC 2012

On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 10:09:44AM -0500, Sahil Tandon wrote:
> Alexey, I appreciate your perspective on this, but I want to make sure
> you are aware of the related discussion (and opposing viewpoints) on
> freebsd-ports:

Yes, I've heard that reasoning a number of times since I started to hack on
ports, which is a relatively long period.  Technically, since there is no
supporting infrastructure to ensure if some app really requires particular
shlib version or not (and I personally do not see how it can be implemented
automatically for any arbitrary port out there), the whole issue right now
is little more than a matter of personal preference.

I agree that most of the times it does not matter if you specify shlib
version in LIB_DEPENDS or not; there're currently no ports of the same origin
that install different ABI shlibs, and our framework does not support it
either, AFAIK.  I want to make it clear that I don't know of any technical
problems of not specifying shlib version, as it is hard to verify and we
cannot be sure that upstream maintainers bump it correctly in 100% of cases
anyways.  However, I know what most ports specify it, and it makes sence to
me for the reasons I state above: it makes easier to spot when some port was
not updated during the build phase on any tinderbox.  Without that and
forgotten port revision bump, users would find it out themselves that their
not updated package does not work because of ABI changes.  With shlib
tracking, such port would be broken on tinderbox and likely be fixed before
it will be installed by our end users.

Bottom line: unless we have reliably working solution to ensure if a port
really wants a particular ABI or not, it's better to be on the safe side.


More information about the cvs-ports mailing list