Subject: Re: make update == make broken
To: Hisashi T Fujinaka <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Hubert Feyrer <hubertf@NetBSD.org>
Date: 06/24/2005 18:33:46
On Fri, 24 Jun 2005, Hisashi T Fujinaka wrote:
> I work on packages for fink (Mac OS X package manager) and they're
> broken in the FreeBSD way.
> OK, if I understand correctly, what you're saying is there are two ways
> to do upgrades:
> 1) the NetBSD way where everything that could possibly be broken due to
> dependencies is deleted for safety, or
> 2) the other way where bad packages are left lurking and may or may not
> be bad.
> In the NetBSD way, we might have too many things deleted when the ABI
> didn't change enough to matter, etc. In the other way we have files that
> possibly could core dump.
> And the question is, which is worse? I'd say I like the non-NetBSD way
> better. I was without minicom for a long time because it wouldn't build.
FWIW, you can have #2 with NetBSD's pkgsrc too.
#1 is basically "make update", #2 is "make replace".