[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Plugin versioning?
- To: ports_(_at_)_openbsd_(_dot_)_org
- Subject: Re: Plugin versioning?
- From: Joshua Stein <jcs_(_at_)_rt_(_dot_)_fm>
- Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 21:33:19 -0500
- Mail-followup-to: ports_(_at_)_openbsd_(_dot_)_org
> Basically, these modules are very similar to shared libraries.
Not really. A shared library is to be used across multiple applications
whereas a plug-in is more intended to be a piece of code that can be
loaded and unloaded without having to recompile the application.
A shared library might be used by a dozen applications. How many
applications will ever use an Apache or gkrellm plug-in?
> Not versioning modules means that we can't install two different
> versions in parallel.
> Just how likely is this scenario?
But how often would one install two different versions of an application
or a plug-in?
> Versioning modules is a pain in the sphincter. Apart from patching
> the Makefiles, the code that does the loading needs to be fixed.
> And since version schemes vary among unices, and I don't know of
> a way to interface this with libtool, the resulting patches aren't
> portable and can't be submitted back.
I think a change this large is beyond the scope of the ports system.
Having to patch a new application to implement this and update these for
every release seems pointless, especially considering that these patches
would probably never get incorporated back into the application. One
should not have to be forced to act as a developer of the application
just to get it to build on an arbitrary platform. This kind of
modification seems suited to be handled by someone on the application's