Re: policy proposal: updating packages with many dependencies

[David Holland <dholland-pkgtech%netbsd.org@localhost>]

On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 01:05:30PM +0000, Jonathan Perkin wrote:
 > > The part of what I think you want that is harder is not updating to new
 > > micros.  Updating seems ok stability wise, but it does trigger bulk
 > > rebuilds.  It doesn't seem right to be to avoid bugfixes because of cpu
 > > time, when rebuilding is a choice.
 > 
 > Some of the other changes in my tree are moving towards a split between
 > cmake as a package intended for end users, and cmake as a build tool
 > required by packages, as they are very different things.

That is probably a good idea.

 > cmake as a build tool should have all of code where it looks in hardcoded
 > paths for headers/libraries, network support, etc ripped out, and updated
 > very infrequently only when absolutely necessary and only after extensive
 > testing.  I'm also switching it to use its bundled dependencies to improve
 > bootstrap support and avoid GCC dependencies.

So is that, like the way pkgconfig got rationalized, except that I
fear what it will end up costing :-(

-- 
David A. Holland
dholland%netbsd.org@localhost