[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: New Amanda patch
- To: ports_(_at_)_openbsd_(_dot_)_org
- Subject: Re: New Amanda patch
- From: naddy_(_at_)_mips_(_dot_)_inka_(_dot_)_de (Christian Weisgerber)
- Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 22:05:12 +0000 (UTC)
- Newsgroups: list.openbsd.ports
Tom Schutter <t_(_dot_)_schutter_(_at_)_att_(_dot_)_net> wrote:
> The more I think about this, the more it bothers me. Given the history
> of Amanda, there is a %90 chance that amanda-2.4.2p3 will have changes
> that affect the shared libraries.
Well, if "there are absolutely no other programs outside of Amanda
that try to use the libraries" it doesn't really matter either...
> But under your scheme, the shared library name won't change until
True. Of course we can use a different scheme. Start with 0.0
and bump the major as required. It is kind of annoying if the
upstream developers don't care and the port maintainer needs to
check the API and do the versioning.
I'm not set against going static libs only. Now that I look at
configure again, --disable-libtool may indeed be the right way.
Seeing the --without-client and --without-server flags reminds me
again that this would be a nice candidate for MULTI_PACKAGES.
I also notice that configure checks for the existence of gtar and
smbclient. It may be desirable to adds those as dependencies,
maybe optionally as flavors. If not, configure must be convinced
to not pick them up if they happen to be installed on the system--
package building must have deterministic results.
Take your time folks. Amanda will not go into 2.9.
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber naddy_(_at_)_mips_(_dot_)_inka_(_dot_)_de