Subject: Re: make update == make broken
To: Hisashi T Fujinaka <email@example.com>
From: D'Arcy J.M. Cain <darcy@NetBSD.org>
Date: 06/24/2005 12:38:08
On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 09:22:02 -0700 (PDT)
Hisashi T Fujinaka <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> 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.
3) The proposed way where everything that could possibly be broken due
to dependencies is deleted *eventually*. The proposal is not to leave
stale dependencies around. The proposal is to delete the package Just
> 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.
Right. NetBSD does the correct thing in rebuilding all dependent
packages IMO. For safety we must replace those packages eventually.
> 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
And certainly there are going to be cases where you will be without
something because the ABI did change in an incompatible way and the
package breaks until it gets rebuilt. This is no worse than now. The
point of the JIT proposal is that it will probably be better than we
have now in the more common cases.
D'Arcy J.M. Cain <darcy@NetBSD.org>