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

[MacPorts]

#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.
 boost)
 # 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: <https://trac.macports.org/ticket/51208#comment:5>
MacPorts <https://www.macports.org/>
Ports system for OS X