Re: false alert on new pkg_add shlibs check?

[Greg Troxel <gdt%lexort.com@localhost>]

Thomas Klausner <wiz%gatalith.at@localhost> writes:

> On Thu, Oct 17, 2024 at 11:23:02AM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote:
>> Sorry, I meant to change the second one to "it's a bug that -f doesn't
>> bypass this check".  I don't see how anybody can get past this, and I
>> don't think we can argue there won't be bugs in checks, or that people
>> won't need to use buggy packages.
>
> Since this additional check was implemented because of a bug report
> that caused a pkg_add core dump, I'm against allowing -f to override
> this.
>
> The problem is that the package might have an INSTALL that runs a
> program that actually needs the REQUIRED library.

But the core dump is due to (a bug really but) INSTALL ending
abnormally, and that  can happen from many causes, and this REQUIRED bit
is about some other set of causes.  It's plausible that
  1) INSTALL will go badly even if all libs are ok
  2) INSTALL can be fine even if there is a lib problem
  3) the libs are actually ok but the metadata is wrong or the check is buggy

> Probably one(TM) could also improve that part so that pkg_add doesn't
> dump core when an INSTALL script fails to run completely, but that's
> not implemented yet and before that I'm against adding the override.

Becaues a user having the ability to override, which might provoke a
core dump, is super terrible?  And that not being able to install a
package, even if a little messed up but working, is better?

With the new check, there's an error, and if someone adds -f and gets
pkg_add.core, that's not really hard to figure out.   Vs having to edit
the sources or use some older version.