From nobody Fri May 26 14:53:37 2023 X-Original-To: ports@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4QSSbm4lQ3z4WqYl for ; Fri, 26 May 2023 14:53:40 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from madpilot@FreeBSD.org) Received: from smtp.freebsd.org (smtp.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::24b:4]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "smtp.freebsd.org", Issuer "R3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4QSSbm4GTSz3qTH; Fri, 26 May 2023 14:53:40 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from madpilot@FreeBSD.org) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=freebsd.org; s=dkim; t=1685112820; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding; bh=UpepPoxq1zbGeZF6YXLveOu/gBinoGoQiC7MHhpAIcU=; b=Pt2akfPPiOInEUgi0kOfpAl0bvLGhS+RpuYEtGG0FiJSgUyWHfC3EzTiPgzQoSplKD7D9J UlG7/uCRokGKQ/nmY04kElWTSWAvIb5fT8p4CIsKTOpbvkEJF0eCZG15awSNqjTnNrxET2 xmOx7m3gJFPKKEJ+fUfoGsGYPLo0hijTY9c5xq9tsdk3muMRTDCkrKvUaXd5YmmXGU+iNE oDkUoRmXXDs3Hc+S2hA1MphsWYK8mOarEOPAevBnlbWrpHbW0/8lrR0eJ9R0qw+PiRU830 YlmBbv3cKiM7EBFVkqH01cWH8ncTlTOet5RJjCRmBWe3WKSpUFku8BNeNNqMvw== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=freebsd.org; s=dkim; t=1685112820; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding; bh=UpepPoxq1zbGeZF6YXLveOu/gBinoGoQiC7MHhpAIcU=; b=WE1XsLmaNuL3G1mpeCzuioOJgQZmmqdc4VtzayrFg7HQE5Gx7tsxrJyyj8rIRJmgeNWLKu +lFA67aQ/qt98KgnES9VlHoAgGAq8y525RfAgKsjLqzzHLU4lg8OUSVOYsM/Hzxvl9sVgz yr822NJyDPurYc59UkkuMFOMCqxmT/xBgjxiYElCLBEa2HfAm0qxv/SkeuRJ+Yr5scTnrF OZJvCOICip5RkIuHIIH1xrDM5WuW9p5Icgdm5vymuWCFt1aFJSxBn6Dpr9PzA21gNWA1cO qM/CjcHEiO7WmXprF2f7Wy+XW1iQSefLepOCYJvi/xT7WDm0oF2V3YvvpoEa4g== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx1.freebsd.org; none ARC-Seal: i=1; s=dkim; d=freebsd.org; t=1685112820; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=F32nH6mHNu1Yfy9/ptl9XtexZuhwzFp69EcDvne4w0m7rcbwvUvpU3ZoL926DaqPzmh6Ub MKW36Z2wmxoyR3B3B9I0Dt2kb6+CebtTEhKWeXuyMiiuxd/bM2Ejy8mqwQa3i4z65UDAyh 4Hk8xZc36+MvAAkNXf/37Y+iOfF+mGJECaYYdiJA5MmTmSlO8VR+2MQV9n4qnQnXvMM2Nx OCRHQXTtM8dg8X8n0VC9qzE7beLRU23lMkwrIFmvlo+0ySsIlpVl6Z3M2CfzigHE34oEM6 iSYAk4d3hlrY3ceyYxUj13Bx/REionwlyGTxt2V+uR0SEKgOPNyIA3zDKRuo5g== Received: from [IPV6:2a01:e11:2002:4280::13:1] (unknown [IPv6:2a01:e11:2002:4280::13:1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (Client did not present a certificate) (Authenticated sender: madpilot/mail) by smtp.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4QSSbm0yCVz12gg; Fri, 26 May 2023 14:53:39 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from madpilot@FreeBSD.org) Message-ID: <3e5e10a3-75e7-795e-edbf-378bcb4999a4@FreeBSD.org> Date: Fri, 26 May 2023 16:53:37 +0200 List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-ports List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.11.1 Content-Language: en-US To: "ports@FreeBSD.org Ports" , Po-Chuan Hsieh From: Guido Falsi Subject: graphics/podofo: 0.10.x requirement Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ThisMailContainsUnwantedMimeParts: N Hi, As the maintainer of the calibre port, while trying to update to 6.18.x I've discovered that now calibre requires the new API/ABI incompatible podofo 0.10 version. I also guess that other ports will also grow such requirements in the future. So my question, both general and to the sunpoet as podofo maintainer, is, how should we address this? Also, is this already being addressed, maybe? We can't simply update graphics/podofo, obviously (all dependent ports would brake). Plan 1 - My first idea is creating a graphics/podofo10 port that can be installed in parallel with graphics/podofo (by changing the name of every file installed that conflicts), so that ports moving to the newer library can be patched to use the newer one. plan 2 - Another option is doing the same as above, but my updating podofo to the latest version and moving old 0.9.x to a graphics/podofo09 (or whatever) port, updating all dependencies to use the older port for now. Plan 2 - is not what I'd prefer right away, but could have the advantage that sometime in the relatively distant future when most dependencies will have been moved to podofo 0.10.x we will not need any further big change to change the "default" version. Any opinion? if no work is already underway IO could start looking into Plan 1, but it will take a little time before I get anything I can share. -- Guido Falsi