How image installs work [was Re: The image question]
Yves de Champlain
yves at macports.org
Sat Mar 10 05:42:43 PST 2007
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the macports-users