Re: policy proposal: updating packages with many dependencies

[Greg Troxel <gdt%lexort.com@localhost>]

Thomas Klausner <wiz%NetBSD.org@localhost> writes:

> 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).

This seems good.  A key point, besides testing, is that it changes the
way updates happen from one person deciding to do it, into a group
decision.

I'll note that

  https://www.pkgsrc.org/quarterly/

says

  Always, the following updates require PMC approval:

  By "require PMC approval", we intend to decide as a group that an
  update is good for pkgsrc, allowing those who think it's too soon to
  be part of the discussion.

and lists boost and icu.   gmake and qt5 are on the list.   qt5 is now
stable and might as well be dropped, and I still find gmake risky on
balance given the vast number of depending packages.

A few years ago I would have suggested cmake be on this list, but it
seems upstream is more stable now, and I don't remember recent troubles.
I would say that with any non-trivial trouble, it should get added to
the list, and that in general we should add things immediately when
there is trouble, and think about removing them when it's been 3 years
with updates happening that don't need accomodations.