Libiconv confusion on 10.0-RELEASE
mcdouga9 at egr.msu.edu
Fri Mar 21 01:07:08 UTC 2014
On 03/20/2014 14:54, Dr. Peter Voigt wrote:
> Thanks on feedback to all.
> Meanwhile I've read a lot about iconv and to be honest, things are
> becoming even less clear. I am having not enough experience with FreeBSD
> to completely judge the situation. But obviously replacement of the
> ports version of iconv is still an ongoing process somehow related to
> Besides the full list of affected ports I would like to know, if the
> 11 ports on my 10.0-RELEASE system currently depending on
> converters/libiconv all really have to. Or could they be built against
> the base iconv? My attempts so far to rebuild them with
> the /usr/ports/UPDATING advice was not successful. My feeling says
> that information about iconv in /usr/ports/UPDATING is not complete.
"Late" in the release cycle, libiconv was added to the base in 10. At
the time, libiconv in base was intended to fully replace the one in
ports on 10. For people who already had an earlier version of FreeBSD
10 or less were encouraged to recompile ports to use the libiconv in
base and get rid of the port. Later on after 10 was released and people
started using applications that use libiconv from base, some features
were discovered missing or working improperly and some ports were
modified to pull in libiconv from ports, and the libiconv from ports was
modified to stop whining at users to remove it on 10.
In short, if you installed 10.0-RELEASE, don't pay any attention to
libiconv unless you are having specific problems. Do not try to fight
ports from using libiconv from ports, they are using that version for a
good reason. You don't really have a choice. Just relax and go with
the flow. Don't try to force things to use one or the other.
More information about the freebsd-ports