Current-Users archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: HEADS UP: I will be merging christos-time_t by the end of the week

David Holland <> writes:

> On Mon, Jan 05, 2009 at 02:57:00AM +0000, Christos Zoulas wrote:
>  > >What about structures that have inline time_t members? Otherwise
>  > >this is a serious issue waiting to be hit. Just consider two different
>  > >libraries, one old, one new, both using stat(2).
>  > 
>  > All have been versioned. Including rpc, etc.
> Are we going to do a mass revbump in pkgsrc?

Why is this any different that any other change, like base system
openssl bump?  If we revbump every package, should we be doing this for
every incompatible change in every OS pkgsrc runs on?  I don't think
we've ever (or certainly not usually) done this.

One does need to build new packages when the OS changes, at least
sometimes.  But a revbump won't fix that, because people who rebuild
during the bump and then update to current won't get a rebuild.

Probably we need to treat the base system as a virtual package with an
ABI version and do some sort of unsafe_depends marking when updating the

For binary packages, I think nuking all existing binary packages for
current and starting builds over, plus users of current marking all
installed packages unsafe_depends should suffice.  pkg_chk or pkg_rr
probably needs to learn to do binary replacements of unsafe_depends

I think this is all pretty hard and not new and that we shouldn't force
fixing it simultaneously the time_t changes.

Attachment: pgpiKbcYYZ9wj.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index