Subject: Re: BUILDLINK_DEPENDS.gtk2 >=2.4.0?
To: Thomas Klausner <wiz@NetBSD.org>
From: Rene Hexel <email@example.com>
Date: 04/16/2004 21:55:41
On 16/04/2004, at 9:43 PM, Rene Hexel wrote:
> On 16/04/2004, at 6:40 PM, Thomas Klausner wrote:
>> I thought major shlib bump was a reason to bump DEPENDS?
>> After all, there is not *.so.200 after the update, so old binary
>> packages _will_ fail. And I don't think that adding such links
>> (.so.200 -> .so.400) is a good idea.
> Neither do I. But I don't see how bumping depends will help with
> old binary packages. They would still install against a newer library
> and fail, regardless of whether RECOMMENDED or DEPENDS was bumped.
To elaborate some more: the way to fix this problem is to bump the
PKGREVISIONs of the packages that depend on this library. This way, we
ensure that new binary packages (with a distinct version number) can be
uploaded onto ftp.
But this is orthogonal to the question of whether
BUILDLINK_RECOMMENDED or BUILDLINK_DEPENDS should then be changed. If
packages build fine against both versions of the library (old and new),
BUILDLINK_RECOMMENDED should be changed [*]. Only if (a sufficient
number of) packages require the new version of the library (e.g. such
as in the recent gtk/gnome update), should BUILDLINK_DEPENDS be
[*] this will still record an updated dependency in binary packages
unless overridden with IGNORE_RECOMMENDED. But binary packages created
with IGNORE_RECOMMENDED will by default refuse to install with pkg_add