Re: [MacPorts] #51208: icu @55.1 — add a +norename variant

MacPorts noreply at
Sat Apr 23 09:48:06 PDT 2016

#51208: icu @55.1 — add a +norename variant
  Reporter:  ken.mcglothlen@…  |      Owner:  ryandesign@…
      Type:  enhancement       |     Status:  new
  Priority:  Normal            |  Milestone:
 Component:  ports             |    Version:
Resolution:                    |   Keywords:  haspatch
      Port:  icu               |

Comment (by ken.mcglothlen@…):

 As to the first two points, I assumed those weren't really my call in the
 first place, and I expected that the patch wouldn't be accepted as is.

 Suggestions for a variant name are welcome; I was guided in my choice by
 ‘boost’, which has both a +no_static and a +no_single variant by default
 (though I admit, I omitted the underscore). I'm perfectly willing to
 resubmit my patch with whatever more experienced port maintainers prefer.

 As to “wreak havoc,” I would think that having entry points that
 ''didn't'' change names with every new version would actually be a plus
 for dynamic linking. Sure, there would be a need to force a rebuild on
 dependent ports, but only the first time. As the portfile says:

 # Don't forget to increase the revision number of the dependents (e.g.
 # whenever the library version number changes. Thanks.

 If the entry points didn't change names with version numbers, wouldn't
 that requirement go away? Or do programmers that use libraries such as icu
 prefer to link with version-specific entry points (in which case, why
 would one use dynamic linking in the first place)? (I'm not trying to be
 sarcastic; it's a genuine question.)

Ticket URL: <>
MacPorts <>
Ports system for OS X

More information about the macports-tickets mailing list