Re: libcroco and xz

[David Holland <dholland-pkgusers%netbsd.org@localhost>]

On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 12:33:04AM +0200, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
 > On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 07:31:40PM +0000, David Holland wrote:
 > >  > The problem I have with the commit is that it also hides the reverse
 > >  > case. A dependency is declared as build time only, used by a dependency
 > >  > as full dependency, but explicitly linked against. I'm more inclined to
 > >  > care about that case than the reverse.
 > > 
 > > I think that's less important. If it's an indirect dependency, it'll
 > > always be present; the only way it'll fail at runtime is if an update
 > > to libxml2 changes it to longer bring in xz. However, this will result
 > > (if handled correctly) in xz being removed from xz's bl3.mk and
 > > libcroco being revbumped and rebuilt, and then the liblzma NEEDED
 > > entry will go away in the new build. IOW, it won't fail, so there's no
 > > point worrying about it.
 > 
 > If we want to do that (I'm mildly opposed, but I agree that this will
 > hit us a lot more often), I think the correct approach is to expand the
 > list of full dependencies once. So move the pkg_info -r calls out of the
 > AWK script and provide a second version of the .depends file that
 > contains the full list of packages we are willing to accept shared
 > linking against.

That sounds fine; however, can we have obache's version back first so
we don't end up with pointlessly broken packages in 2012Q2?

-- 
David A. Holland
dholland%netbsd.org@localhost