Subject: Re: Heads up: BUILDLINK_RECOMMENDED now works
To: Todd Vierling <>
From: Jeremy C. Reed <>
List: tech-pkg
Date: 09/16/2004 11:23:54
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004, Todd Vierling wrote:

> On Wed, 25 Aug 2004, Jeremy C. Reed wrote:
> > And maybe the default should be USE_RECOMMENDED?=no so it will behave the
> > same as before this week's fix?
> Whatever the case, a build setting no options *should* use the RECOMMENDED
> versions; this ensures properly up to date redistributable binpkgs, for
> one.  (See the warning message printed at "make package" time if

Now it seems like the purpose of the RECOMMENDED is confusing. The problem
stated by many (and hitting me today on a different system) is that
packages dependencies are being forced to build even though not needed.

It seems like the behaviour of not using RECOMMENDED would be more useful
for most pkgsrc users -- why upgrade packages if not needed? It takes a
lot of time.

Even for binary packages, I'd prefer that the dependencies were not so
strict, so I can continue to use my old packages (as dependencies) which
work fine.

If they don't work fine, the the BUILDLINK_DEPENDS should be increased
(maybe only needed for specific packages).

I'd guess that only a small portion of pkgsrc users really want to be
force to upgrade dependencies all the time. They can use the RECOMMENDED.

I do understand problems with redistributable binary packages though, such
as it may be built with old headers or built with old static library.

I am not sure about this. Who purposely uses IGNORE_RECOMMENDED? Anyone
have comments on this?

> Also, the libtool fix will depend critically on RECOMMENDED being used by
> default if no special options are set.
> [BTW, thanks for writing this notice; I'm away dealing with family business
> this week.]

 Jeremy C. Reed

 	  	 	 BSD News, BSD tutorials, BSD links