On Aug 30, 2021, at 17:27, Christopher Nielsen wrote: > Folks, > > As part of the overarching GIMP upgrade effort, we’re juggling updates to a > number of foundational ports. One of those is ‘harfbuzz’, which is still > pending via PR 11948 (https://github.com/macports/macports-ports/pull/11948). > > Not surprisingly, some of the pending updates require updated dependencies of > their own. And so it goes with pango, which requires an updated harfbuzz. > > To proactively test updates to this pair, it’s been necessary to create a new > Devel port, harfbuzz-devel (and companion harfbuzz-icu-devel), to correspond > with pango-devel. > > Both pango-devel, as well as harfbuzz-devel/harfbuzz-icu-devel, have finally > been updated to their latest upstream releases. So that’s a key hurdle out of > the way. > > Now there’s just one logistical snag: We need to update dependents of > ‘harfbuzz’ and ‘harfbuzz-icu', to utilize a path-style dependency. Once > that’s done, we won’t have issues with the non-Devel version being > inadvertently pulled in, when the Devel versions are installed. > > So the $100,000 question is: For all of the dependent ports - there are 33 > for ‘harfbuzz’, and 11 for ‘harfbuzz-icu’ - do folks mind if I (carefully) > update each, switching to a path-style dependency for these? That can > certainly be done via a PR - or perhaps several - but that seems overkill. > Though I’m willing to do it, if folks feel strongly enough. (You might hear > some grumbling though. LOL. Just kidding...) > > Thoughts? > > Thanks, > -Chris
Hi Chris, I haven't been following everything closely and wasn't aware harfbuzz devel ports were going to be introduced. But if they are, then you can make the required dependency change to all ports in a single commit. I would not consider it necessary to ask permission of the port maintainers since it's not a matter of opinion; it's just a necessary change so that MacPorts can continue to function as intended.
