Subject: Re: make update hell
To: Jeremy C. Reed <>
From: Pavel Cahyna <>
List: tech-pkg
Date: 10/07/2004 08:31:17
> One solution (but has not been done yet) is to take advantage of the
> information already recorded by pkgsrc. We have the list of libraries
> provided and required in the +BUILD_INFO files (see PROVIDES= and
> REQUIRES=). Maybe we can add some rules that check this information on
> installs and deinstalls and upgrades.

The intent is to use this infomation to tell if a "make replace" is safe
or not? It would be a step forward, but it still would not enable to have
multiple versions of a library installed in parallel, no? So if "make
replace" decided that it would be unsafe, nothing would break, but you
still would have no way to proceed except rebuilding all the depending
packages. Is this correct?

I saw a thread recently on tech-pkg@ that discusses something like
embedding a version number in package name, That would probably help in
this situation.

Bye	Pavel