That's fine with me.

-- 
  Sent from a phone, apologies for poor formatting.

On 18 February 2026 17:06:49 Kurt Miller <kurt@intricatesoftware.com> wrote:

> On Feb 18, 2026, at 9:25 AM, Stuart Henderson <stu@spacehopper.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 2026/02/18 13:10, Kurt Miller wrote:
>>> I need this to improve the ghidra port. Ghidra needs protobuf, py-protobuf
>>> and protobuf-java to be the same version (or at least close enough they
>>> are compatible with each other). Currently ghidra has a build depend on
>>> protobuf and a run depend on py-protobuf and I patched ghidra so the
>>> supplemental distfile downloads protobuf-java. The problem with this
>>> approach is that when the system protobuf is incremented to a version
>>> that is not compatible with the protobuf-java in the distfile, the
>>> ghidra supplemental distfile must be rerolled.
>>>
>>> The better approach is to have a protobuf-java port that is kept in
>>> sync with the rest of the protobuf port versions and have ghidra use
>>> it. This will allow me to fix the current brittle setup and allow
>>> protobuf to be updated without requiring either a new supplemental
>>> ghidra distfile or for ghidra needing to be bumped every time protobuf
>>> version changes.
>>>
>>> okay?
>>>
>>
>> ok to import.
>>
>> do we want some comment in devel/protobuf about keeping the others
>> in sync (and ideally info on how to check if they're close enough?)
>
> Before tb@ went on vacation he mentioned to me off-list that he
> updates protobuf and py-protobuf at the same time. So this would
> be another to keep in sync with protobuf. Just to be clear when I
> said same version I was referring to the PROTOBUF_VERSION part of
> the version. A comment does make sense. How does this look?
>
> # Keep PROTOBUF_VERSION in devel/py-protobuf and devel/protobuf-java
> # in sync with this port.
>
> -Kurt