Subject: Re: make update == make broken
To: Jeremy C. Reed <>
From: Geert Hendrickx <>
List: tech-pkg
Date: 06/24/2005 17:06:16
On Fri, Jun 24, 2005 at 05:00:41PM +0200, Geert Hendrickx wrote:
> And the FreeBSD way, portupgrade, is theoretically broken.  It replaces
> dependencies without rebuilding some/all of the dependant packages.  In
> practice, this may work out 90% of the time.  And FreeBSD has manpower to
> fix the other 10%.  How do they do this?  If e.g. libpng is updated to a
> version _known to cause binary incompatibilities_ (needs manpower to
> check this!!), they bump the version of all packages depending on it.  So
> a portupgrade -r will upgrade them too.  You (with your reasoning)
> wouldn't mind: you say, oh, KDE has a bumped package version, ok to
> upgrade it too, whereas the KDE package itself really didn't change.  We
> (pkgsrc people), don't bump the version of any depending packages, we
> just assume you to rebuild them anyway, to play safe.  

Here's an example if you want:

That's a LOT of packages updated, including some BIG ones.  The commit
message says: 

> Bump the PORTREVISION for the ports directly affected by the gettext
> upgrade.