> Now that we have non-recursive dependencies, we should only bump
> revisions for packages directly depending on a given one (in this
> case, opencdk).
>
> Yeah, it may happen that some packages that depend on a package that
> depends on opencdk break too.  But if this happens, the former package
> was missing a direct dependency on opencdk, so it should be corrected.
>
> Isn't it?

That helps with all new packages.

But it doesn't help if you have an old package that has an open-ended
dependencies which allow it to work with newer packages that have
conflicting libraries.

(Please see my other email in this thread for two ideas.)

By the way, if an "objdump -x" of a library shows NEEDED of a shared
library, then should we always include the package as a dependency (add
buildlink includes)? For example, evolution does not directly depend on
gnutls nor libgcrypt, but they are included as NEEDED by a evolution
library. (NEEDED only shows directly needed libraries. ldd would show all
the libraries used in addition recursively.)

 Jeremy C. Reed

 	  	 	 open source, Unix, *BSD, Linux training
	  	 	 http://www.pugetsoundtechnology.com/