Subject: Re: lightweight groff package?
To: Greg Troxel <email@example.com>
From: Greg A. Woods <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 08/21/2003 13:45:40
[ On , August 21, 2003 at 08:00:51 (-0400), Greg Troxel wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: lightweight groff package?
> There's a judgment call to be made on a per-package basis:
> And my pet peeve: dependencies on libraries that have major version
> bumps way too often. If a library is fairly stable, 'make replace' of
> it will succeed and seem like a sane thing to do when it has an
It's not that simple.
Indeed unless the pkgsrc maintainer can guarantee ABI compatability
between the old and new library then there's no choice but to recompile
and re-link all dependents, if you want good reliable software built in
a hygienic fasion that guarantees not to introduce new bugs, that is.
Very few third party package maintainers have even 1/10'th the ability
and track record of having done good ABI compatability maintenance as,
for example, the base NetBSD releases have managed to do. Some of those
packages will never have been tested by their primary maintainers on
anything but i386 and accidental ABI changes may easily have crept into
their libraries even when not intended.
Greg A. Woods
+1 416 218-0098 VE3TCP RoboHack <email@example.com>
Planix, Inc. <firstname.lastname@example.org> Secrets of the Weird <email@example.com>