On Thu, Aug 31, 2006 at 01:18:22PM +0400, Stanislav Sedov wrote: > On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 10:53:50 +0200 > Marcus von Appen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> mentioned: > > > Hi, > > > > I updated sdl12 to the latest stable version 1.2.11 on my system and > > thought, that it might be a good thing to incorporate the both related > > reports ports/99943 and ports/70900 (which can be closed then). > > > > As both ports/70900 suggests, the patch matches the SDL version 1.2. So > > instead of using 'sdl11' and 'SDL11', ... one would use 'sdl12', > > 'SDL12', ... > > > > According to a quick `find /usr/ports -type f |xargs grep "sdl11"` there > > are 37 ports with 42 files, which would need to be patched, > > http://www.sysfault.org/sdl12-patch.log > > > > and around 400-500 ports would possibly need a version bump to chase the > > update (according to the usage of USE_SDL in /usr/ports). > > > > Anyways, I personally dislike the sdl-config naming hack as it simply > > has no use anymore and is applied to a _stable_ version. Instead of > > using SDL12, sdl12-..., I would use the default. There is only one > > libSDL port available at the moment, libSDL 1.3 is still in development > > and I do not think, that the majority of applications will switch to > > libSDL 1.3 instantly when it is out. > > > > Thus I'd vote to make the critical jump, drop the renaming for > > devel/sdl12 and fix up all related ports. If a devel/sdl13 port is about > > to be committed, we can rename it, wait for the majority of ports to be > > usable with it and then drop (if no longer needed) sdl12 completely or > > change it back to sdl12-... or whatever else. > > > > Another possible solutions would be symlinks to the current stable and > > favourized sdl version, which match the SDL defaults. > > It also would ease a lot for developers as they would not have to care > > about the FreeBSD specific renaming scheme. > > > > So before I submit another pr for sdl12 which is rejected, I'd like to > > hear, whether the patch for 1.2.11 (or the 1.2 branch in general) should > > use > > > > a) SDL12 sdl12-config, sdl12.pc... (logical fix for FreeBSD renaming > > b) SDL11 sdl11-config, sdl11.pc... (current default) > > c) SDL, sdl-config, sdl.pc (SDL default) > > d) ln -s (symlinks to the renamed stuff to > > ease life for developers and porters) > > > > I am not subscribed to freebsd-ports, so please put me into the CC when > > you answer to the list. > > > > Hi! > > We are already working on upgrading sdl12 with sem@ and sat@ and almost > all patches already available. We decided to eliminate this stupid > sdl11 renaming scheme and use stock sdl naming politics. This will > simplify the process of sdl-dependent creations greatly. > Unfortunately, there are over 500 sdl dependent ports currently, and > before commit we should ensure all of them builds Ok. > > So don't send another sdl PR, if you want to help you can write to > me, sem@ or [EMAIL PROTECTED] Help is always needed. > > BTW, all sdl_* ports should be upgraded as well as there was little > API breakage at 1.2.10 AFAIK. > > Thanks for your work!
Thanks, let us know when you have something ready for testing, although it will probably have to wait until after the 6.2 release cycle. Kris
pgp0BsGpbrVDG.pgp
Description: PGP signature
