On Thu, 24 May 2001, David Brownlee wrote:
> On Thu, 24 May 2001, Frederick Bruckman wrote:
>
> > http://mail-index.netbsd.org/pkgsrc-changes/2001/05/22/0079.html
> >
> > What should happen, is imlib should get an "nb" bump to reflect the
> > change in it's dependencies, and then all packages that depend on
> > imlib have to update their to DEPENDS to the latest version for imlib,
> > and get their version bumped, and so on. Same for any other package
> > that depends on png. That's the only way!
>
> 	Hmm - the 'make update' in png also rebuilt imglib, so I _should_
> 	have been OK on that front?

Not really. Someone's going to try to install "gnome" from binaries on
the ftp site, and it's going to be all messed up, because some
packaged binaries will need libpng.so.1.0, and some binaries will need
libpng.so.2.0, and there'll be no way to distinguish which combination
of packages will work. Worse, since packages are going to be
overwritten with identically versioned ones, there may be no way to
install gnome at all, unless the entire collection is rebuilt from
scratch.

As much trouble as it is to walk up the chain from png, bumping
dependencies and "nb" versions, at least there _is_ a right to handle
it. For shared libraries which could optionally exist in the base
system (I'm thinking openssl), there's no right way to do it, unless
you were to insist on using the pkgsrc version for NetBSD-1.5.x, which
would really suck.

> 	As an added bonus rebuilding gnome-libs has made the gnome_segv
> 	program work so I can see that gnumeric is getting a segv, but
> 	leaves me no closer to a working gnumeric.
>
> 	I'm probably going to have to delete and rebuild all packages on a
> 	non production box to see if its upgrade related or a problem with
> 	a change in a package.

Did you see any warnings at link time? Like, "built-in dependency of
libfoo on libpng.so.1 conflicts with built-in dependency of libbar on
libpng.so.2"? Does "ldd /usr/X11R6/bin/gnumeric" show any sign of
libpng.so.1.?


Frederick