On Wed, 1 Mar 2006, Jeremy C. Reed wrote:

> > You sure?  On cursory glance, e.g. x11/xcursor does not have a runtime
> > dependency on fixesext.  Unless the updated fixesext changes ABI somehow,
> > dependencies that are two or more layers removed from fixesext and
> > compositeext do NOT need a bump, because they do not change.
>
> I am not sure. My installed version of xcursor-1.1.1nb2 depends fixesext.

What are you using to determine that xcursor depends *directly* on fixesext?
The correct way to find out is "pkg_info -n"; in particular, the list output
by "pkg_delete -R -n" is wrong for this purpose as it is recursive.

> But I don't see it as a BUILD_DEPENDS either when using:
>
> bmake show-var VARNAME=BUILD_DEPENDS
>
> x11/xcursor's includes ../../x11/Xfixes/buildlink3.mk which includes
> fixesext.

Correct, because second-level bl3 includes do not register DEPENDS or
BUILD_DEPENDS.  That is so that, for instance, fixesext can change without
altering Xfixes's API/ABI -- thus allowing an older binary package to use a
newer build of Xfixes, which was built with a newer fixesext.

> My main concern was buildlink3.mk files that include
> fixesext's buildlink3.mk (which was not a "build" dependency).

Yes, those deserve a bump because their *direct* dependencies change.

-- 
-- Todd Vierling <tv@duh.org> <tv@pobox.com> <todd@vierling.name>