Subject: Re: CVS commit: pkgsrc
To: Frederick Bruckman <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Thomas Klausner <email@example.com>
Date: 05/25/2001 03:24:07
Mutt made me believe that Frederick Bruckman wrote:
> In article <20010522093229.BB72DB00B@cvs.netbsd.org>,
> firstname.lastname@example.org (Thomas Klausner) writes:
> > Log Message:
> > Update dependency on png to >=1.0.11 because of the shlib major bump.
> > Noted by Frederick Bruckman.
> Thanks! I think they should all get "nb" bumps, too, the idea being
> to _not_ overwrite the existing binary packages, to give binary
> package users a "way out" -- the can stick to the penultimate
> version(s) of selected packages while the remaining packages are
> updated a few at a time. If you fail to bump the version after
> bumping the dependencies, the existing packages will be overwritten,
> and there will be a huge window where it is not possible to install
> all of them at the same time (because some will require libpng.so.2
> and some will require libpng.so.1). That could even make it impossible
> to install packages that require more than one of these (ghostscript?
> gnome?) until everything is rebuilt, which would be bad.
I thought a bit about this, and I don't think I really want to do
this. The main argument I can extract from your statement above is
that the set of available binary packages should be consistent (and
I agree with that), but I don't think bumping the version numbers is
the correct way to achieve this -- rather somebody should build the
correct binary packages; either for themselves or for upload to
If we follow your suggestion to the end, we should just add all the
majors of all packages one particular package depends on into its
[Redirected from src-changes to tech-pkg, where this discussion really
should take place.]
Thomas Klausner - email@example.com