Subject: Re: BUILDLINK_DEPENDS.gtk2 >=2.4.0?
To: Rene Hexel <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Jeremy C. Reed <email@example.com>
Date: 04/16/2004 07:30:43
On Fri, 16 Apr 2004, Rene Hexel 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.
But pkg_add will still allow it to be installed because of open-ended
This is another example of why we should take advantage that pkgsrc can
already record sonames -- and use those sonames at pkg_add time to confirm
that the package can be installed. Does anyone want to code that?
Jeremy C. Reed