On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 10:03:23AM -0500, Ian Cooper wrote:
> Ideally, you shouldn't get any compilation errors unless there is a
> typo or something in the dependency list, or you have a version
> mismatch or something.  Right?  You can always do "make -k blah" to
> compile and ignore unimportant errors like errors in installing
> documentation, right?

Ideally pkgsrc is always 'in sync' i.e. no package updates were added
before the cvs update. I mean I can update pkgsrc in the middle of a
big bunch of updates to pkgsrc, and then my pkgsrc is inconsistent.

Or you could have little errors in, say glib (had that one, a lacking
include sys/null.h) where occasionally an error occurs (this was fixed
in pkgsrc without increasing any minor version or -nbx stuff) and then
you're quite ... erm ... <censored> when you update something which
depends on glib itself and it rebuilds (tries to) the dozens of packages
which rely on the package you're updating, fails to compile (at all!),
thus even with make -k no chance, as the needed libs will be deinstalled
but not reinstalled.

e.g. glib <- oaf <- gnome-vfs <- galeon
(not checked this dependency graph, just as example)
    you update oaf, glib's fucked, oaf *build* fails, nothing
from oaf gets installed. While you were updating oaf, gnome-vfs
got deinstalled and thus galeon, too. K, you end up with a lacking
oaf, gnome-vfs and galeon this way. And this example only used
one program at its end. I am used to make snapshots of pkg_info
before and after an update and check what got dropped to rebuild that
or try in 24 hours [I make a nightly pkgsrc-update]

> 
> --
> Ian Cooper
> ian@wpi.edu
> 
> --
> "m=mrEzEiEimtKrEimzm,mtmWEimrKJEimrm,mzE
>  zEiEimrEKmtEiKEmWm,mHmHKrEimzm-KaEimrmz
>  KJm,mzmWEzEiJbEr" --ian

Martin Weber