Ade Lovett píše v so 10. 03. 2007 v 01:22 -0800:
> As for the second issue, I am still waiting for positive empirical
> evidence that the remedy is not in fact worse than the cure. To
> date, unlike the gnucash/libltdl issue, where it was obviously
> documentable that the previous method of
On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 08:16:04 -0800
Ade Lovett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > A does not reference C. There is no reason to rebuild A. This is
> > called encapsulation. You don't need to rebuild your whole system when
> > libpng is updated. It's relatively easy, yet it's entirely useless and
> > go
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mar 10, 2007, at 07:43 , Jean-Yves Lefort wrote:
On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 06:42:31 -0800
Ade Lovett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Statement #1: "This slows down the linking considerably"
This one should be easy enough to prove. Providing timings. Pay
On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 06:42:31 -0800
Ade Lovett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mar 10, 2007, at 05:45 , Jean-Yves Lefort wrote:
> > Repeatedly read the PR until you understand it. Pay attention to the
> > provided objdump diff, and to the fact that the patch modifies the
> > link_all_deplibs variab
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mar 10, 2007, at 05:45 , Jean-Yves Lefort wrote:
Repeatedly read the PR until you understand it. Pay attention to the
provided objdump diff, and to the fact that the patch modifies the
link_all_deplibs variable. Understand what that variable
does
On Fri, 9 Mar 2007 19:31:17 -0800
Ade Lovett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mar 09, 2007, at 18:30 , Jean-Yves Lefort wrote:
> > I told you there is one.
>
> You have stated there to be a problem. I am still waiting for
> quantifiable evidence. I have not received any so far.
Repeatedly read t
On 2007-Mar-10 01:23:23 +0100, Jean-Yves Lefort <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>If you don't like my solution, provide one yourself. You are the
>maintainer, and you introduced that regression by resurrecting .la
>files.
libtool is designed to use .la files. By installing the .la files,
FreeBSD is co
On Mar 10, 2007, at 00:57 , Doug Barton wrote:
Ade Lovett wrote:
it's not related to +REQUIRED_BY, as already pointed out. Braino
on my part, this is compile and run-time issues, not a ports
dependency issue. My apologies.
I think it's both, since there is absolutely no reason that mtr,
Ade Lovett wrote:
On Mar 09, 2007, at 22:47 , Doug Barton wrote:
On it's face I find the idea of bumping PORTREVISION for every port
that uses libtool in any form a sort of silly proposition. The change
in behavior was introduced in Mk/*, I think it's reasonable to expect
that the fix happen
On Mar 09, 2007, at 22:47 , Doug Barton wrote:
On it's face I find the idea of bumping PORTREVISION for every port
that uses libtool in any form a sort of silly proposition. The
change in behavior was introduced in Mk/*, I think it's reasonable
to expect that the fix happen there too.
Ok.
Ade Lovett wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mar 09, 2007, at 17:30 , Jean-Yves Lefort wrote:
On Fri, 9 Mar 2007 17:05:31 -0800
Ade Lovett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
3. Ports that *are* affected by this issue (assuming the issue still
exists) can be fixed in a more rela
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mar 09, 2007, at 18:30 , Jean-Yves Lefort wrote:
I told you there is one.
You have stated there to be a problem. I am still waiting for
quantifiable evidence. I have not received any so far.
That's right, thousands of commits are more el
On Fri, 9 Mar 2007 17:56:52 -0800
Ade Lovett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mar 09, 2007, at 17:30 , Jean-Yves Lefort wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 9 Mar 2007 17:05:31 -0800
> > Ade Lovett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> 3. Ports that *are* affected by this issue (assuming the issue still
> >> exists) can
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mar 09, 2007, at 17:30 , Jean-Yves Lefort wrote:
On Fri, 9 Mar 2007 17:05:31 -0800
Ade Lovett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
3. Ports that *are* affected by this issue (assuming the issue still
exists) can be fixed in a more relaxed manner (eg: a c
On Fri, 9 Mar 2007 17:05:31 -0800
Ade Lovett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mar 09, 2007, at 15:14 , Doug Barton wrote:
>
> > Ade Lovett wrote:
> >> So, item (1): does the problem actually still exist with a port using
> >> the in-tree devel/libtool15 (via USE_AUTOTOOLS= libtool:15[:env]. If
> >
On Mar 09, 2007, at 15:14 , Doug Barton wrote:
Ade Lovett wrote:
So, item (1): does the problem actually still exist with a port using
the in-tree devel/libtool15 (via USE_AUTOTOOLS= libtool:15[:env]. If
yes, empirical evidence will be required as an addendum to the
PR. If
no, then we're
On Fri, 9 Mar 2007 14:34:31 -0800
Ade Lovett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mar 09, 2007, at 14:21 , Doug Barton wrote:
> > Can we have some response from Ade, and/or portmgr on when this might
> > be fixed? I would agree that the current behavior is suboptimal.
>
> I'm pretty certain that this h
Ade Lovett wrote:
>
> On Mar 09, 2007, at 14:21 , Doug Barton wrote:
>> Can we have some response from Ade, and/or portmgr on when this might
>> be fixed? I would agree that the current behavior is suboptimal.
>
> I'm pretty certain that this has been addressed with recent updates to
> devel/libt
On Mar 09, 2007, at 14:21 , Doug Barton wrote:
Can we have some response from Ade, and/or portmgr on when this might
be fixed? I would agree that the current behavior is suboptimal.
I'm pretty certain that this has been addressed with recent updates
to devel/libtool15 and devel/libltdl15 --
Moving this thread from the cvs lists ...
The problem described in
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=104877 is now causing
significant issues for our users due to the recent libgpg-error
version bump.
Can we have some response from Ade, and/or portmgr on when this might
be fixed? I would
20 matches
Mail list logo
