editors/abiword-devel -- 2.3.2 is now available

Mikhail Teterin Mikhail.Teterin at murex.com
Wed Jul 13 22:10:59 GMT 2005


середа 13 липень 2005 17:49, Jeremy Messenger Ви написали:
> > There would be no harm in extracting these, but there is a danger, that
> > now or in later releases something may include a header from the bundled
> > copy of one of the packages (PACKAGE), while still linking with the
> > -lPACKAGE installed by the PACKAGE port.
>
> I think it's good idea, but remove abiword-plugins from the EXTERNALS.

Why bother extracting abiword-plugins, when it is not needed? Aren't the 
plugins installed by their own port?

> png.4 -> png.5, you still have to rebuild it anyway because of abiword
> will be still linking to libpng.so.4. 

I am sorry, I can not parse the above statement. My point -- as you seem to 
have missed it -- is that a user, who already has libpng.so.4 installed, 
should NOT be forced by the abiword build to upgrade his png port.

If you disagree and think, she/he should be forced to do so, please say: 
"yes"...

Note, I'm talking about _package_ building -- that is not going to be affected 
by the change I propose _at all_.

> So, force it to rebuild  abiword will get it to link on libpng.so.5. I
> rather to keep them in  Makefile as what it's now, it's easier to grep in
> ports tree for know  which need to be change and bump.

You can still grep for ``png''. Better yet, use the INDEX file. Having png.5 
there does not help you _anyway_ -- the png port has already gone through 
several upgrades without changing the major number.

So, there is no advantage in keeping the shared library numbers there, but 
there is a significant disadvantage -- the users are required to upgrade all 
changed dependencies, whenever they want to build abiword.

	-mi


More information about the freebsd-gnome mailing list