On 3/21/07, Pav Lucistnik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Andrew Pantyukhin píše v st 21. 03. 2007 v 11:31 +0300:
> On 3/21/07, Alexander Leidinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > When you need a program which needs a newer lib than installed on a
> > production system, but you don't get a maintenance window to update
> > all other programs which use this lib, then not having the old lib
> > will hurt.
> >
> > When the reason for the library version bump also requires to change
> > some parts in the source of the programs which make use of the lib,
> > you have to update all programs at once. If some programs have bugs in
> > more recent versions which you can't accept in production and when you
> > need to install a program which needs the new lib version, you are
> > busted when you don't have the old lib around.
>
> But don't you smell an architectural flaw here (of the
> ports system) and don't you feel that working around it
> in a tool in the base system might only mess things up
> even more?..
No I don't see a systematic flaw here. Or you suggest we reset all
shmajors everywhere to zero?
I would suggest that multiple versions of any port
should be allowed to be installed simultaneously -
and without the burden of introducing versioned
ports.
I do not volunteer just yet to propose an outline
of a solution to make that possible, but workarounds
have a tendency to be tolerated in the long run once
introduced into the base system. objformat tool is a
nice example of such a workaround.
_______________________________________________
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
