On Thu, 1 Apr 2004, Thomas Klausner wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 01, 2004 at 09:16:01AM -0500, Todd Vierling wrote:
> > April 1 is an appropriate day to bring this up again, though I'm actually
> > quite serious.  :)
> >
> > I've heard zero technical objections to turning off recursive registration
> > in bsd.pkg.mk, which is one of the prerequisites to solving 21097.  From my
> > rigorous usage since before submitting that PR in April of last year, I've
> > never had a broken dependency, likely due to the use of buildlink[23] to
> > track these things.  I have, however, been blessed with a less interwoven
> > dependency tree that has made it a bit easier to use binary pkgs.
> >
> > I'd like to ask one last time before committing if there are any objections
> > to the following change.

Do it! Do it!

> Will this need some kind of flag day?

No. The effect will simply be to prune some redundant dependencies.

In the past, before we consistently bumped package revisions for
material changes, there would have been the problem, that a package
might only say it needed libfoo-1.0, when what it really needed was
the-libfoo-1.0-that-depends-on-libbar-2.0, rather than
the-libfoo-1.0-that-depends-on-libbar-1.0. Now, the former is called
libfoo-1.0nb1, and the dependency is adjusted accordingly, so there
can't be any problem with that.

The benefit is simply that the package system will let you use more,
old binary packages in cases where you really can.

Frederick