Re: Library numbers in LIB_DEPENDS considered harmful (Re: recent portrevision bump for libvpx)

2012-02-18 Thread Matthew Seaman
On 18/02/2012 00:01, Doug Barton wrote: On 02/17/2012 15:41, Mikhail T. wrote: If, in fact, the current port does not care, which version of libfoo is uses -- and most software does not -- then declaring an explicit V is wrong: it /gratuitously/ tightens the build-time requirements. Unless a

Re: Library numbers in LIB_DEPENDS considered harmful (Re: recent portrevision bump for libvpx)

2012-02-18 Thread Jakub Lach
It's obviously a matter of trade-off, and I'm with Mikhail on this one, but in the end it all depends how well tested/maintained those ports would be. But it's not like that all ports upon bumping shlib version are tested now, are they? If not, then it's moot point. bes regards, - Jakub Lach

Library numbers in LIB_DEPENDS considered harmful (Re: recent portrevision bump for libvpx)

2012-02-17 Thread Mikhail T.
On 17.02.2012 17:05, Zhihao Yuan wrote: LIB_DEPENDS= png.6: or =png: does not affect how the lib got linked. Allow me to rephrase my argument from a different perspective... The language used in our ports' Makefiles is, largely, /declarative/ -- various things are declared and then

Re: Library numbers in LIB_DEPENDS considered harmful (Re: recent portrevision bump for libvpx)

2012-02-17 Thread Zhihao Yuan
On Feb 17, 2012 5:41 PM, Mikhail T. mi+t...@aldan.algebra.com wrote: On 17.02.2012 17:05, Zhihao Yuan wrote: LIB_DEPENDS= png.6: or =png: does not affect how the lib got linked. Allow me to rephrase my argument from a different perspective... The language used in our ports' Makefiles is,