| 1 |
On Saturday, February 12, 2011 21:37:29 Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: |
| 2 |
> Il giorno sab, 12/02/2011 alle 18.21 -0500, Mike Frysinger ha scritto: |
| 3 |
> > patching packages in the tree is a huge hassle, |
| 4 |
> > you add hassle to end users who d/l random packages and try to build |
| 5 |
> > things |
| 6 |
> > themselves, and you make Gentoo non-standard wrt every other distro |
| 7 |
> > out there. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> What I had in mind was something that would work for upstreams as well, |
| 10 |
> mostly by having fallback; so if a package supported up to libpng 1.4 it |
| 11 |
> would search for -lpng14, then -lpng12, then -lpng (and in Gentoo would |
| 12 |
> hit -lpng14); while one supporting 1.5 as well would go -lpng15 -lpng14 |
| 13 |
> -lpng12 -lpng ... |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> i.e. what most already do for berkdb but at some point with us not |
| 16 |
> providing -lpng at all, if most upstreams would like that idea. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
i'm not sure comparing to berkdb is appropriate. upstream packages using |
| 19 |
berkdb have themselves changed to doing a version scan before falling back to |
| 20 |
the canonical one. if upstream packages start changing to do that with |
| 21 |
libpng, then perhaps we can talk about restructuring libpng ebuilds, but it |
| 22 |
seems to me that upstream packages are more likely to simply update their code |
| 23 |
to work with libpng-1.5 than add a version scan for libpng-1.4. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
thus it's a lot more sane in the long term to assume that packages support the |
| 26 |
latest rather than patching everyone (and being forced to carry those custom |
| 27 |
patches indefinitely) to set the ceiling at the last "known" working version. |
| 28 |
-mike |
Archives