q: shared library version change => ports revision bump
avg at freebsd.org
Fri Feb 25 10:27:12 UTC 2011
Hey ports guys,
I wonder how you decide in what ports to bump revision numbers when there is a
shared library version change in some port.
I ask this with the very recent openldap24-client change in mind.
For example, all (perhaps almost all) KDE4 ports got revision bump. But libchk
tells me that only kdepimlibs installed binaries that are linked with
libldap-2.4.so. (even kdeartwork got bumped.)
I realize that there is a certain benefit/easiness to just bumping revisions of
all ports that record any kind of dependency (however indirect/weak) if only
just in case. But there is also a cost/churn to that. That cost may not seem
to be very significant comparing to potentially prevented problems, but when
multiplied by number of all people upgrading their ports and packages it gives a
different perspective on the (limited Earth) resources wasted.
And also it looks like virtuoso port was missed - libchk tells me that its
executables are linked to the ldap library.
This kind of thinking may be applicable to the recommendation given in UPDATING
Things like this are probably best handled by specifying 'provides/requires'
contracts for the ports/packages (e.g. provides libxxx.so.N, requires
libyyy.so.M), but that's a different (and quite huge) story.
More information about the freebsd-ports