Re: BUILDLINK_API_DEPENDS for libpurple and pidgin

["Jeremy C. Reed" <reed%reedmedia.net@localhost>]

On Tue, 27 May 2008, Tobias Nygren wrote:

> > I have installed: pidgin-2.3.1 and libpurple-2.3.1.
> > 
> > I went to install chat/pidgin-otr, but it tried to bring in new versions 
> > of pidgin and libpurple. So I stopped it and set 
> > BUILDLINK_API_DEPENDS.libpurple and BUILDLINK_API_DEPENDS.pidgin so 2.3.1 
> > version would be okay.
> > 
> > It built and installed fine. And as far as I can tell, it works fine. And 
> > I didn't have to restart pidgin -- just enabled plugin.
> > 
> > Is the API jump really required? Is the ABI jump really required? 
> > (ABI_DEPENDS tracks API_DEPENDS when not set.) For me it appears neither 
> > were needed.
> > 
> > Also, the PKGREVISION on chat/pidgin-otr was never increased related to 
> > the ABI changes of its dependencies, so I am guessing this was missed. But 
> > since as far as I know it is not needed, that is good.
> > 
> > Okay to lower the BUILDLINK_API_DEPENDS.libpurple and 
> > BUILDLINK_API_DEPENDS.pidgin so 2.3.1 version would be okay?
> 
> Yes it's OK to lower them.
> However, there is no way to know if/when the internal dependencies
> between libpurple and pidgin change. If you lower the ABI depends,
> please add explicit depends to the pidgin, finch, pidgin-sametime and
> pidgin-silc Makefiles so they depend on the exact same version of
> libpurple.
> 
> Thanks,
> -Tobias

I never did this. And now on a different system I am running:

libpurple-2.4.2 and pidgin-2.4.2nb1

And I installed pidgin-icb-20070505nb2 today after modifying the API 
dependencies in both of the above buildlink3.mk files.
It build, installed and runs fine. Note that the pidgin-icb README says it 
only works with 2.0.0.

Is this still okay to lower? I will also add a comment next to these 
settings to explain.

I use pidgin a lot.