Re: gimp 3.0

[Thomas Klausner <wiz%NetBSD.org@localhost>]

On Wed, Apr 09, 2025 at 07:53:43AM +0100, Jonathan Perkin wrote:
> * On 2025-04-09 at 00:40 BST, Thomas Klausner wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Apr 08, 2025 at 11:38:51PM +0100, Jonathan Perkin wrote:
> > 
> > > I would rather not have a build published than potentially ship broken
> > > packages to my users.
> > 
> > But in all three cases there are no binary packages for the packages
> > with problems (and their dependencies). So there is no difference
> > here.
> 
> I'm not convinced this is true.  For example if an older binary package of
> the dependency is still lying around in PACKAGES, coupled with pkg_add's
> behaviour to automatically pull in dependencies.

The post-January behaviour is to mark packages with a failure in the
scan phase with PKG_FAIL_REASON, so the bulk build will not even
attempt building them (and the packages depending on them). So pkg_add
doesn't come into it.

Anyway, you can use strict_mode to get the old behaviour back.
 Thomas