Subject: Re: problem building galeon and don't know why
To: NetBSD Packages Technical Discussion List <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Greg A. Woods <email@example.com>
Date: 05/07/2002 12:45:24
[ On Tuesday, May 7, 2002 at 13:53:56 (+0200), Thomas Klausner wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: problem building galeon and don't know why
> On Tue, May 07, 2002 at 06:24:04AM -0500, Frederick Bruckman wrote:
> > [See pkg/15822.] It looks like we need to bump the requirement for
> > gtk+, too. If we do that, we also need to bump the PKGREVISION and
> > dependencies for everything that depends on glib and gtk+,
> I'm not sure we need to bump the dependency for glib, since it's a
> compile-time problem, not a run-time change.
Yes, of course....
> I just updated the PKGREVISION for glib. So if someone sees something
> doesn't build, checks and sees that he doesn't have the latest glib,
> we hopefully will try to update that first.
> I was tempted to update the buildlink-dependency to 1.2.10nb1, too.
> Now I'm not so sure anymore -- why do we have to update the
> PKGREVISION of dependant packages? For binary packages? (Do we still
> need it after we got @blddep?) Is there no better way?
I don't think that would "help" since there's currently no way to
separate the build and run-time dependencies. I don't know that we'd
want such a separation either, though strictly it would be more correct
since this isn't likely the only situation where building something
requires a newer version of a dependency, but runtime will work fine
with an older version. Even for supporting static-only builds in pkgsrc
all you need is some way to convert some kinds of run&build-time
dependencies back into just build-time dependencies (and I've got a
mechanism for doing that in use here, but it's a bit less optimal than
Greg A. Woods
+1 416 218-0098; <firstname.lastname@example.org>; <email@example.com>; <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Planix, Inc. <email@example.com>; VE3TCP; Secrets of the Weird <firstname.lastname@example.org>