there is a way to avoid strict libraries linking?

[Freddie Cash]

On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 12:02 PM, Leinier Cruz Salfran <
salfrancl.listas at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 2:50 PM, Freddie Cash <fjwcash at gmail.com> wrote:
> > The port maintainer doesn't *have to* update anything.  When library
> ports
> > go through a library bump like this, all the ports that depend on it get
> an
> > automatic PORTREVISION bump.
>
> okey maybe i didn't understood the 'bump' means .. I must to thank you
> because of comment about this subject
>
> > All the port maintainer has to do is double-check that the port compiles
> > with the new version of the lib.  Only if there are issues with that
> (which
> > usually get picked up by the -exp runs on the ports cluster), then the
> port
> > maintainer has to step in and fix things.
>
> okey let me see if I understood you .. you mean that I create a
> 'ONE_PORT' to a specific program version and if one of the library on
> which the 'ONE_PORT' depends change to a major version, then the
> 'ports cluster' put add PORTREVISION to the 'ONE_PORT' and update the
> *_DEPENDS automatically????????


Correct.

The PORTVERSION doesn't change.  But PORTREVISION gets bumped up by 1.

That way, when user's check for updates in the ports tree, via "pkg_version
-vl '<'" or "portversion -v" or similar tools, then ONE_PORT will be listed
as "update available" like so (not exact syntax, going from memory):

one_port-1.0.0     <= needs update (port has one_port-1.0.0_1)

The _1 part is PORTREVISION.  It's used to say "the version hasn't changed,
but something in the ports tree requires this to be re-installed or
'upgraded'".  Maybe an OPTIONS line was added, or a dependent library
version changed, or a build dependency changed, or a new RC script was
added, or something like that.

There's some good examples/explanations of PORTREVISION in the FreeBSD
Porter's Handbook.

-- 
Freddie Cash
fjwcash at gmail.com