#51208: icu @55.1 — add a +norename variant -------------------------------+-------------------------- Reporter: ken.mcglothlen@… | Owner: ryandesign@… Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: Normal | Milestone: Component: ports | Version: Resolution: | Keywords: haspatch Port: icu | -------------------------------+-------------------------- Comment (by ken.mcglothlen@…): As to the first two points, I assumed those weren't really my call in the first place, and I expected that the patch wouldn't be accepted as is. Suggestions for a variant name are welcome; I was guided in my choice by ‘boost’, which has both a +no_static and a +no_single variant by default (though I admit, I omitted the underscore). I'm perfectly willing to resubmit my patch with whatever more experienced port maintainers prefer. As to “wreak havoc,” I would think that having entry points that ''didn't'' change names with every new version would actually be a plus for dynamic linking. Sure, there would be a need to force a rebuild on dependent ports, but only the first time. As the portfile says: {{{ # Don't forget to increase the revision number of the dependents (e.g. boost) # whenever the library version number changes. Thanks. }}} If the entry points didn't change names with version numbers, wouldn't that requirement go away? Or do programmers that use libraries such as icu prefer to link with version-specific entry points (in which case, why would one use dynamic linking in the first place)? (I'm not trying to be sarcastic; it's a genuine question.) -- Ticket URL: <https://trac.macports.org/ticket/51208#comment:5> MacPorts <https://www.macports.org/> Ports system for OS X