Chad Perrin code at
Sat Sep 10 23:03:02 UTC 2011

On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 10:38:55PM +0200, Matthias Andree wrote:
> Am 10.09.2011 18:17, schrieb Chad Perrin:
> > On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 12:09:16PM +0200, Matthias Andree wrote:
> >>
> >> On the other hand, you're pointing out a problem of dead ports in the
> >> first place: if the API of (usually library) port Y changes, and port X
> >> is unmaintained, that's typically a situation where port X needs to be
> >> deprecated and removed (and also will no longer build and/or work).
> > 
> > I want to understand all the reasoning behind this stuff.  Please explain
> > the reason that library Y changing means that dependent port X should be
> > deprecated and removed, regardless of whether it no longer builds and/or
> > works.  Note that I'm working on the assumption that your assertion it
> > should be deprecated and removed does not rely on it no longer building
> > and/or working because of the way you mentioned no longering building
> > and/or working as a parenthetical addendum rather than a condition of
> > deprecation and removal.
> I suppose you missed the meaning of "if the API of port Y changes".
> API = application programming interface.  This implies that either the
> application no longer builds, or it is known that it would behave
> inappropriately with the new library (because semantics changed).

That would have been an unwarranted assumption.  If the API changes, it
might mean a couple of changes were made -- and they do not affect the
parts of the API that port X uses.  I chose to take what you said at face
value, rather than make a bunch of assumptions about it.

Thanks for clearing up your intended meaning, though.

Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: ]
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 196 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :

More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list