Re: pkgin, version numbers and upgrade policy

[Manuel Bouyer <bouyer%antioche.eu.org@localhost>]

On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 11:16:25AM +0200, Havard Eidnes wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I've noticed that we have a more or less common routine that when
> significant changes are made to a package, so-called "recursive
> PKGREVISION bumps" are done.  If I understand correctly, this is
> primarily done so that users of binary packages will notice that
> there's a need to also update dependent packages, and to trigger
> an upgrade, typically via pkgin.

It's also used by pbulk to know if a package needs to be rebuilt or not.

> [...]
> On the other hand, if security/openssl *is* pulled up after
> gnupg, and the associated PKGREVISION bump is done, you will, if
> you don't do anything else, end up with the version number for
> gnupg decreasing when 2016Q3 is cut, and pkgin will as a result
> be unhappy ("no repository for gnupg-1.4.21nb1") when you try to
> upgrade.

I've always had the feeling that our pkg numbering is not good enough
for stable branch. As it is there is no way to know if a package was
built from a stable branch, and which one.

-- 
Manuel Bouyer <bouyer%antioche.eu.org@localhost>
     NetBSD: 26 ans d'experience feront toujours la difference
--