On Mon, Jul 25, 2005 at 05:53:39PM -0500, Richard Rauch wrote:
> Hm...I always thought that pkgsrc *did* do a forwards/backwards
> update of all necessary packages.  This is why it is so painful to
> do "make update": The heavy cross dependencies and conservative
> approach to shared library version changes often result in huge
> chunks of pkgsrc being rebuilt.

Yes, but even that would be better than what is happening now: packages
are deleted and then the system fails because some package exists and
pkgsrc is not using "make update" but "make install".

> Then one package fails during rebuild.

This should be rare if you're using "stable" pkgsrc versions (like
2005Q2), right?

> I believe that on more than one occasion, I've updated
> the emacs package, which depends on some graphics libraries (PNG,
> JPEG, TIFF, and GIF stuff), and have seen it insist on an updated
> version of those libraries---which then rebuilds a huge percentage
> of my other packages (GIMP, XFig, ghostscript, TeX, ...).  This
> kind of thing is why I don't keep GNOME or KDE installed, generally.

I happen to use kde (no matter how buggy and bloated it is), so I try
to keep it installed ;-)

> I've seen the kind of message that you describe, but it's rare.  My
> memory is that it happens only when I cannot do a successful
> "make update" on the package itself to get the desired update.
> 
> Is it possible that you have altered /etc/mk.conf in some way that
> affects this?

This is what I have in mk.conf (in addition to some ACCEPTABLE_LICENSES
lines):

WRKOBJDIR=/work/obj
PACKAGES=/work/packages/1.6/${MACHINE_ARCH}
DISTDIR=/work/distfiles
DEPENDS_TARGET?=package

On another system, there are only some ACCEPTABLE_LICENSES lines and
I still see the same problem (although I don't dare to "make update"
right now).

  -jm