On 2023/01/11 15:50:54 +0100, Jan Stary wrote:
> Ah, looking at the nm(1) diff of the previous and current linsdfile.so,
> the ogg_opus_seek_manual symbol is missing now (1.2.0) wrt previous (1.1.0).
> Does that imply a SHARED_LIBS bump?
that's a symbol used by the library, not provided by it, so
rivate internal function, not exported
$ /usr/src/lib/check_sym /usr/local/lib/libsndfile.so.7.0
/usr/obj/ports/libsndfile-1.2.0/fake-amd64/usr/local/lib/libsndfile.so.7.0
/usr/local/lib/libsndfile.so.7.0 -->
/usr/obj/ports/libsndfile-1.2.0/fake-amd64/usr/local/lib/libsndfile.so.7.0
No dynamic export changes
On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 03:50:54PM +0100, Jan Stary wrote:
> Ah, looking at the nm(1) diff of the previous and current linsdfile.so,
> the ogg_opus_seek_manual symbol is missing now (1.2.0) wrt previous (1.1.0).
> Does that imply a SHARED_LIBS bump?
No. ogg_opus_seek_manual wasn't public:
000782f
S file: /cvs/ports/audio/libsndfile/distinfo,v
> retrieving revision 1.20
> diff -u -p -r1.20 distinfo
> --- distinfo 3 Apr 2022 11:12:38 - 1.20
> +++ distinfo 11 Jan 2023 12:13:49 -
> @@ -1,2 +1,2 @@
> -SHA256 (libsndfile-1.1.0.tar.gz) =
> ZCqHa9YbY/k0ZijbpfigNWo611DH9vQgGdJs5gumoVs=
> -SIZE (libsndfile-1.1.0.tar.gz) = 684409
> +SHA256 (libsndfile-1.2.0.tar.xz) =
> DjDnBy+D3ISGPi5V8pkXXH4EpZAq55z7mdQknuj21go=
> +SIZE (libsndfile-1.2.0.tar.xz) = 730268
On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 01:31:17PM +0100, Jan Stary wrote:
> On Jan 10 20:03:49, h...@stare.cz wrote:
> > I am working on an update of libsndfile to 1.2.0.
>
> diff below.
>
> Tested on current/amd64 and current/aarch64;
> tested with sox (converting various formats).
> Please test everywhere.
>
-1,2 +1,2 @@
-SHA256 (libsndfile-1.1.0.tar.gz) = ZCqHa9YbY/k0ZijbpfigNWo611DH9vQgGdJs5gumoVs=
-SIZE (libsndfile-1.1.0.tar.gz) = 684409
+SHA256 (libsndfile-1.2.0.tar.xz) = DjDnBy+D3ISGPi5V8pkXXH4EpZAq55z7mdQknuj21go=
+SIZE (libsndfile-1.2.0.tar.xz) = 730268
On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 08:32:19PM +0100, Jan Stary wrote:
> On Jan 10 20:11:54, t...@theobuehler.org wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 08:03:49PM +0100, Jan Stary wrote:
> > > I am working on an update of libsndfile to 1.2.0.
> > >
> > > Sadly, I was not around for the 1.1.0 update (thank you Br
On 2023/01/10 20:11, Theo Buehler wrote:
>
> I don't think there is a disadvantage to it. It's already done.
>
> -GH_TAGNAME=1.1.0
> +GH_TAGNAME=1.2.0
>
> make makesum
> make FETCH_PACKAGES=
>
> and you should be ready to test (and see if you need to bump the shared
> library version, e
On Jan 10 20:11:54, t...@theobuehler.org wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 08:03:49PM +0100, Jan Stary wrote:
> > I am working on an update of libsndfile to 1.2.0.
> >
> > Sadly, I was not around for the 1.1.0 update (thank you Brad),
> > when apparently the decision was made to switch to the cmake
On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 08:03:49PM +0100, Jan Stary wrote:
> I am working on an update of libsndfile to 1.2.0.
>
> Sadly, I was not around for the 1.1.0 update (thank you Brad),
> when apparently the decision was made to switch to the cmake build.
> Is there a particular reason for that?
>
> Unde
I am working on an update of libsndfile to 1.2.0.
Sadly, I was not around for the 1.1.0 update (thank you Brad),
when apparently the decision was made to switch to the cmake build.
Is there a particular reason for that?
Under https://github.com/libsndfile/libsndfile/releases
they provide a tar.gz
11 matches
Mail list logo
