On Tue, Jul 26, 2005 at 09:12:03AM +0300, Jukka Marin wrote:
> 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".

As I tried to say, it has always seemed to me that all packages
get "updated" if a more recent version is required in order to
complete the build.


> > Then one package fails during rebuild.
> 
> This should be rare if you're using "stable" pkgsrc versions (like
> 2005Q2), right?

If there's a serious security issue with a package that I use, I'm
not going to wait up to 3 months to get it fixed.  (^&


> > 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 ;-)

(^&

KDE has some nice eye-candy/slickness.  When GNOME was new (gnew?),
it had a more original appearance which I liked.  But a well-configured
twm is quite useful and less prone to breaking the real applications
that I use every day.  (^&  (emacs, audacity, the GIMP, ...)


> > 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

Hm...I wonder if your DEPENDS_TARGET would affect this?


Here is my /etc/mk.conf, less comment lines:

 /~~~ /etc/mk.conf

 MKX11=yes
X11SRCDIR=/usr/netbsd/current/xsrc

WRKOBJDIR?=/usr/wrkobj
OBJHOSTNAME=yes

PREFER_NATIVE= xpm

INSTALL_UNSTRIPPED=yes
MPLAYER_DISABLE_DRIVERS= arts
OBJMACHINE=     yes
PKGSRC_MESSAGE_RECIPIENTS= rkr
BLENDER_USE_EXPPYTHON= YES
BLENDER_INSTALL_DOC=   YES
PAPERSIZE=      Letter
USE_TETEX2=     YES
FAILOVER_FETCH= YES

ACCEPTABLE_LICENSES+=povray-license

 \___ /etc/mk.conf


-- 
  "I probably don't know what I'm talking about."  http://www.olib.org/~rkr/