David Holland <dholland-pkgtech%netbsd.org@localhost> writes: > I've suggested a couple times that we might want to distinguish > maybe-broken ("unsafe") depends, like gimp after replacing png, and > definitely-broken depends, like perl modules after replacing perl 5.10 > with 5.12. Whether there are enough cases where we can tell in advance > when a package will break to make this worth supporting, I dunno. That would probably be a useful improvement. One could then replace all packages with known-broken dependencies first. Right now we have unsafe_depends, when a dependency has been changed out and it might not be ok, and unsafe_depends_strict, which is set when a dependency has been changed out but we are sure that it's ok. The point of _strict is that sometimes things that are known to be true aren't. Currently replacing a package with the very same version sets unsafe_depends_strict but not unsafe_depends. As we get better metadata about ABI versions and can describe "manifest data says ABI changed" and "manifest data says ABI didn't change" we can either split unsafe_depends into two or use _strict for "manifest data says ABI didn't change". I am skeptical of our ability to have 100% accuracy on ABI changes, just from the sheer scale of things, so I would favor a third variable. > A definitely-broken depends notation might be useful after doing > pkg_delete -f png with gimp installed, too. Agreed; it would be nice if pkg_delete marked dependencies unsafe_depends on pkg_delete -f, and also if pkg_admin rebuild-tree did so when it doesn't find dependenices.
Description: PGP signature