How image installs work [was Re: The image question]

[Yves de Champlain]

Le 07-03-09 à 16:19, Jordan K. Hubbard a écrit :

> On Mar 9, 2007, at 10:58 AM, Daniel J. Luke wrote:
>
>> That's not how image mode works now - and I'm not sure that we  
>> want to impose the burden of verifying abi/api compatibility  
>> between releases on every portfile author (if we were to add hooks  
>> to make things work that way).
>
> You'd prefer that burden be foisted on the users, eh?  Those who  
> are perhaps least qualified to diagnose and fix the problem? :-)
>
> The fact that API/ABI compatibility is frequently broken is an ugly  
> little secret of our business and somebody, somewhere, always ends  
> up dealing with it.   For fan-out reasons alone, that someone  
> should be as far upstream as possible.

Agree on that, who wants to do a clean reinstall of /opt/local  
because libiconv was upgraded ?

This is also similar to the "port uninstall inactive" behaviour I  
noted.  port should be aware, to some extent, of what kind of  
difference there is between multiple installations of a port. i.e.

different variants / different revision / different version.  And in  
the latter case, does this port provides dependencies to other ports,  
and if it does, what sort of library version change is that ?

Maybe the last check is useful as a hint for the maintainer at best,  
but there are many things that could be checked and handled  
directly.  Portfiles could include a flag for backward  
incompatibilities.

yves

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.macosforge.org/pipermail/macports-users/attachments/20070310/aa99ad5b/attachment.html