Subject: Re: rfc: bulk-build mail list and binary packages
To: Frederick Bruckman <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: David Brownlee <email@example.com>
Date: 07/06/2001 17:56:11
On Fri, 6 Jul 2001, Frederick Bruckman wrote:
> 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.
I completely agree, but that is orthogonal to the bulk-build
David/absolute -- www.netbsd.org: No hype required --