__FreeBSD_version bump? (was: Re: vlc 2.0.3 ProjectM path fix)

[Alexander Kabaev]

On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 13:15:10 +0300
Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 10:45:10PM +0200, Juergen Lock wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 10:09:59AM -0700, Kevin Oberman wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 5:01 AM, Juergen Lock
> > > <nox at jelal.kn-bremen.de> wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 09:54:54PM +0200, Olli Hauer wrote:
> > > >> ...
> > > >> >> I think I got it: It is only a problem of configuring in
> > > >> >> the running vlc. You have to set the right path under
> > > >> >> 'Settings','All','Audio','Visualizing','projectM'. That's
> > > >> >> all ;-)
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > Aah-haah! :)  I've fixed the default paths and made a new
> > > >> > patch:
> > > >> >
> > > >> >     http://people.freebsd.org/~nox/tmp/vlc-2.0.3-010.patch
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> >From your patch:
> > > >> > workaround is to deinstall the old vlc-1.x version before
> > > >> > building the new one.
> > > >>
> > > >> What about a conflict line ?
> > > >> CONFLICTS_BUILD=${PORTNAME}-1.*
> > > >>
> > > >> This allows users to fetch the source but they have to
> > > >> deinstall the old version before building the new one.
> > > >
> > > > Hm well the rtld bug this workaround is for only affects the
> > > > pulseaudio and notify knobs, and the workaround doesn't work for
> > > > the notify knob so it would only cover half the cases, and also
> > > > checking if this is needed in the port would require a
> > > > __FreeBSD_version bump which is probably overkill for this bug.
> > > 
> > > And why is it overkill? I regularly see comments about not
> > > wanting to bump __FreeBSD_version, but it's just an integer
> > > (though presented as a fixed-point fraction). There is no
> > > shortage and I never have understood why people are so hesitant
> > > to change it when there is a real, even if fairly small benefit
> > > from the bump.
> > 
> > Hmm.  Alexander, what do you think?
> 
> Not being Alexander, but appeared on Cc:.
> 
> IMO, bumping __FreeBSD_version should not be done frivolous, and
> routine bug fixes are definitely not the good reason to bump.
> 
> For one, users of HEAD or stable are assumed to run tip of the branch.
> If you want defined point of the branch, use release. With this POV,
> the usefulness of the bump for bug fix is only a week or two.
> 
> Second, bump of __FreeBSD_version signifies major incompatibility
> between pre-bumped tree and current one. In the kernel, each bump of
> version in HEAD means that new modules cannot be loaded into new
> kernel.
> 
> Bumping for bug fixes is a misuse of the mechanism which was put there
> to provide information about major changes in system. For small or
> detectable items, use autoconf-like runtime (or build-time *) tests.
> 
> * - Usually, the tests must be run-time, and not build-time. This bug
> is greatly amplified by use of __FreeBSD_version. The case that
> initiated the discussion is probably the first time I ever saw the
> when build-time test makes some sense.

I agree with Konstantin and I do not see the point to bump the version
just to serve fleeting needs of -stable or -current branch users -
their problems will be gone with upgrade to the tip of the respective
branch and this is the first thing they are expected to do before
reporting a bug anyway.

-- 
Alexander Kabaev
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 188 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-multimedia/attachments/20120820/78a8599a/signature.pgp