Subject: Re: suggestion for package updates mechanism
To: NetBSD-techpkg <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Xavier HUMBERT <email@example.com>
Date: 09/28/2002 14:15:34
firstname.lastname@example.org (Benedikt Meurer) wrote :
> Statically linked software wouldn't be a problem, as they don't need the
> libraries at all once linked, you mean shared libraries instead?
Well, yes and no, there were a little mess in my head when I wrote
An I think there is no bijection betwwen static/dynamic and hard/weak
The actual problem is that all dependencies are traeted equally.
- a shell script does not bother if an executable binary it calls is
changed, provided its cli does not change.
- a binary executable may or may not be affected by a dependent
program's change, it depends on wether the API changes or not.
Actaully, I have seen on my boxes that more than 75% of the dependencies
a "make update" recursively deletes (*) are unnecessary.
But "make replace" is not an option, since there are the remaining 25%
I cannot right now exhitbit in my boxes a "pkg_info -R" output with weak
and hard dependencies, but I'm pretty sure there are.
What should be interesting, at least in a first place is to show them in
pkg_info, so one can decide, "OK I go for make replace" or carefully do
a "pkg_delete -f, then make reinstall"
(*) whith the potential problem that a poorly written PLIST could
delete/overwrite an extremenly complex, and ATML (**) not backuped,
(**) According To Murphy's Law