[Bug 216823] graphics/mupdf: Build shared libraries

[bugzilla-noreply at freebsd.org]

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=216823

Tobias Kortkamp <t at tobik.me> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Attachment #179642|0                           |1
        is obsolete|                            |
 Attachment #179642|maintainer-approval?(udvzso |
              Flags|lt at gmail.com)               |
 Attachment #179671|                            |maintainer-approval?(udvzso
              Flags|                            |lt at gmail.com)

--- Comment #3 from Tobias Kortkamp <t at tobik.me> ---
Created attachment 179671
  --> https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=179671&action=edit
libmupdf.diff

(In reply to Zsolt Udvari from comment #2)
Thanks for testing!

(In reply to Zsolt Udvari from comment #1)
> I think the mupdf's PORTEPOCH increase a small typo - you want increase PORTREVISION (I think) :)

I changed PORTVERSION -> DISTVERSION and 1.10a > 1.10.a according to
`pkg version -t 1.10a 1.10.a`, so I think a PORTEPOCH bump is needed.

But maybe the DISTVERSION change isn't even needed in this case.
I'm mostly going by
https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/books/porters-handbook/makefile-distfiles.html
and what I had to do with games/iortcw (bug #214959).

Anyway I reverted the change and am bumping PORTREVISION instead :)

> I'm not expert in .so-files but why do you need SO_MAJOR?

I'm not either.  AFAIUI, you need to have some kind of indicator for
the ABI version of the library.  In theory you could have two
incompatible libmupdf's on the system e.g. libmupdf.so.1.0 and
libmupdf.so.2.0 (e.g. from Mupdf 1.9a or 1.10a) with different
binaries linking to either one of them and the dynamic linker needs to
be able to distinguish the two.

Since Mupdf doesn't include a way to build a shared library in its
build system we have to invent your own versioning scheme and set the
libs soname appropriately.

Take a look at
https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/books/developers-handbook/policies-shlib.html.

According to the article I probably should've started SO_MAJOR at 1,
so I changed that too.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.