On 2018-04-26 15:36, Perry E. Metzger wrote: > Not sure. I did come up with a better solution for the ABI bump > problem, though, and wanted to run it by you. > > So rather than just guessing based on things like major version of a > library whether dependents need to be bumped, I would suggest we add > an "abiversion" keyword. Changing it in any way would imply that ports > depending on that port would be rebuilt.
All recursive dependents? That could be a long list and many unnecessary rebuilds. You only need to rebuild ports that actually link with the library, but that information is not available. > This would imply that there would be a need to be able to query what > "abiversion" is currently installed. Users would not get any upgrades for ports unless epoch/version/revision was increased. How would you recognize a port as outdated after a dependency increased its abiversion? We should not rebuild an archive that has the same identifier of name/version/revision. Any changes to the contents of an archive has to imply a change in the identifier to be reproducible. Otherwise you would get bug reports against @1.2_3 which is a different @1.2_3 than you have on your system. Rainer
