[HEADSUP] Upcoming change in dependency registration

[Chris H]

On Thu, 22 Jan 2015 16:49:47 -0600 Bryan Drewery <bdrewery at FreeBSD.org> wrote

> On 1/22/2015 2:24 PM, Chris H wrote:
> > On Thu, 22 Jan 2015 19:09:13 +0100 Baptiste Daroussin <bapt at FreeBSD.org>
> > wrote 
> >> Hi all
> >>
> >> Some changes are coming to the ports, the diff is rather simple, but the
> >> change of behaviour is worse notifying all maintainers:
> >>
> >> Currently and since very long the dependency registration in the ports
> >> tree is based on the origin of the packages. which makes it unfriendly
> >> with FLAVORS and Subpackages.
> >>
> >> The ports tree has been changed in the branch
> >> https://svnweb.freebsd.org/ports/projects/rework-dependency-registration/
> >>
..
> >>
> >> This change is being exp-run and will be committed as soon as it is stable
> >> enough
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> >> Bapt
> > Hi Bapt.
> > Will this be OR'ed? In other words; will this create compatibility
> > issues for anyone using ports without this change? While I develop
> > on 11-CURRENT. I wonder about developers that aren't, or haven't yet
> > incorporated this new change? (granted, developers *should* always
> > be running *fairly* current revision(s)).
> > I guess I'm just wondering if ports, and those still using them, that
> > don't *yet* incorporate this change, will still continue to work
> > as intended/expected (at least for awhile).
> > 
> > I'm still reading the proposed changes. :)
> > 
> > Thanks.
> > 
> > --Chris
> > 
> 
> For the most part, ports written after this change can be used without
> this change. The py-27 py-33 multiple installations stuff maybe not.
> 
> This required action here is to fix dependencies depending on *generated
> files* rather than *plist files*. This is a proper fix even without this
> change. So the ports will still work without this change.
> 
> The bigger picture changes, such as sub-packages, flavors and flexible
> dependencies, are not here yet. Those changes will most definitely not
> be forward-compat once they go in. Ports written after those won't work
> with older framework. We're not quite there yet though.
Looking forward to this! :)
> 
> And in general, the ports tree is a single snapshot. It's only supported
> to build a port using the exact Mk/ it was checked-in as. At my work we
> violate this frequently though. It's on us/you to deal with this if you
> choose to go off book.
Understood.

Thanks for clearing things up, Bryan!
> 
> -- 
> Regards,
> Bryan Drewery

--Chris

--