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.
Attachment:
pgpC3QkeNXUmS.pgp
Description: PGP signature