Re: policy proposal: updating packages with many dependencies

[David Brownlee <abs%absd.org@localhost>]

On Tue, 18 Mar 2025 at 13:06, Thomas Klausner <wiz%netbsd.org@localhost> wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> I (with my pkgsrc-pmc hat on) am thinking about instituting the
> following policy:
>
> --- start ---
>
> Before committing non-micro version updates to any of the following
> packages:
>
> - boost
> - erlang
> - go
> - icu
> - llvm
> - poppler
> - rust
>
> a limited bulk build of meta-pkgs/bulk-test-${PACKAGE} needs to be
> run and the result posted to tech-pkg, highlighting what packages
> would stop building (if any).
>
> Depending on the result, pkgsrc-pmc then decides:
>
> - go ahead with the update
>
> - wait for packages X, Y, Z to be fixed (upstream or locally) with the
>   updated version, which is put in wip in the meantime
>
> In the second case, all pkgsrc developers are encouraged to work on
> fixing this - it is not only the updater's task to fix them.
>
> The decision to wait for packages can be revisited.
>
> --- end ---
>
> Rationale:
>
> - the packages above either had extensive fallout before, or affect
>   important packages like firefox.
> - we want to have recent versions of software in pkgsrc, but
> - also want to have small windows where packages do not build
> - we didn't have clear rules for this before, which lead to different
>   expectations from different people

Fully onboard.

I'd be tempted to note it would also be "encouraged" to run the
bulk-test on _any_ update to the relevant packages (though not
requiring the tech-pkg post & debate)

If I could suggest anything extra on top it would be an automatic
warning from pkglint on the relevant base packages :)

David