Subject: Re: rfc: bulk-build mail list and binary packages
To: Hubert Feyrer <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Frederick Bruckman <email@example.com>
Date: 07/06/2001 09:11:18
On Fri, 6 Jul 2001, Hubert Feyrer wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Jul 2001, David Brownlee wrote:
> > If the bulk-build system has rebuilt a package then it should
> > be uploaded along with the rest. Anything else will lead to
> > broken package sets sooner or later.
> I prefer a different approach: I do builds, and when I think they're worth
> putting up for FTP, I do so in one big chunk.
I think that's fine.
There's still a problem when the build replaces a package which
depends on one version of a library with another package that depends
on another version (the name of the new package being identical to the
old), especially when that package, in turn, satisfies other
dependencies. The user (and pkg_add) will think he already has bar-1.1
installed, when he really needs to have the _other_ bar-1.1, the one
that depends on libfoo-1.1. He'll find baz-1.1 (which contains
dependencies on bar-1.1 and libfoo-1.1) won't install, because _his_
bar-1.1 has a dependency on libfoo-1.0.
The only solution is to go up the chain, bumping nb numbers and
dependencies at each step, every time a library version is bumped.
This wasn't done with "png", and that's still a bleeding sore that's
going to hurt somebody when they go to use the unified collection, if
not on i386, on some other platform.