Subject: Re: inflation of PKGREVISION bumps [was Re: CVS commit: pkgsrc]
To: Thomas Klausner <wiz@NetBSD.org>
From: Rene Hexel <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 01/07/2004 10:49:50
On 07/01/2004, at 8:53 AM, Thomas Klausner wrote:
> It's not only for developers uploading binary packages,
> it's also for everyone else who's using binary packages.
So what about the solution I proposed?
It should meet the needs of people distributing
binary packages without hampering people using packages
compiled from source.
>> pkgsrc tree to get some work done. IMHO the danger then
>> up upload packages that were created from an inconsistent
>> pkgsrc tree is much greater this way than without the
>> forced updates.
> I'm sorry that this is making you angry, but I don't see
> that as an argument.
It was not making me angry, but maybe I should write my
first emails after breakfast rather than before ;-)
Nevertheless, the danger of inconsistent packages is real
and has bitten us before. And causing people to resort to
the use of inconsistent pkgsrc trees and/or dangerous
package installation practices is not going to help matters.
>> this is not the case. Pkgsrc is hardly ever in a state
>> where everything compiles.
> This is a different argument.
Yes, and here are probably several more that I cannot
think of at the moment.
To give you a historic reference: we now have
NO_BIN_ON_FTP and the like for purposes that we used to
(ab)use NO_PACKAGE for. While the reasons are slightly
different, the principle of separation of technical
and policy requirements remains the same.