On Sat, Dec 26, 2015 at 01:08:47PM +0000, Stuart Henderson wrote: > On 2015/12/26 13:45, Alexander Hall wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 26, 2015 at 12:19:22PM +0000, Stuart Henderson wrote: > > > On 2015-12-25, Alexander Hall <alexan...@beard.se> wrote: > > > > On December 24, 2015 4:45:06 PM GMT+01:00, "soko.tica" > > > > <soko.t...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Already installed packages should work fine after an upgrade > > > > > > I'd add "usually" here - there are still quite a few times we need to > > > make changes across the ports tree to cope with a change in base. > > > > While I have my guesses, care to give an example or two for the good of > > the community (me included)? :) > > Recent examples include the tun(4) "link0" to tap(4) conversion, > switching ifmedia to 64 bit values (done a few months ago in prep for > 802.11n), changes to some ports to stop fetching addresses by libkvm as > they were removed from the returned structures. Going further back there > are things like some of the libressl changes, kvm_getproc api changes, > 64-bit time_t/ino_t/etc, route message layout changes etc. > > Additionally inter-library dependencies in X can mean that sometimes old > packages stopping working (liba 1.0 depends on libb 1.0 and a package > uses functions from both liba and libb. now libb is updated to 2.0 with > a majorly incompatible ABI change, maybe a change to struct layout; this > means the packages must be updated to cope, otherwise they will expect > the old libb ABI but liba will expect the new one, and you can't have > both at the same time).
Good examples, thanks! /Alexander
