On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 04:37:50PM -0800, Bill Studenmund wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 12:28:27PM -0600, Eric Haszlakiewicz wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 01:02:20PM -0500, John Franklin wrote:
> > > On Dec 8, 2003, at 12:03 PM, Jason Thorpe wrote:
> > > >What if program foo was compiled on a different host, and you received 
> > > >it as a binary?  What if, on that other hose, libother.0 had a 
> > > >recorded dependency on libc.13 (i.e. it is a "fresh install"), but you 
> > > >are running it on a host that has an older libother.0 that has the 
> > > >libc.12 dependency.
> > 	or you just went and updated libother.0 without updating the program.
> > (e.g. in pkgsrc parlance: make replace)
> 
> My recolection is that "make replace" is documented as a, "use at your own 
> risk" kinda thing. :-)

FWIW, "make replace" will work for everything except a .so major bump. 
That is why it is currently tagged as an "experimental target".  Even
then, "make replace" will work correctly assuming that everything that
relies on it is "make replace"d too.

We also now have .so PROVIDES and REQUIRES definitions calculated
automatically at install time, which are stored in the package
metadata, and can be used to determine whether a binary package will
interoperate correctly with other binary packages. Nothing in pkgsrc
yet takes advantage of this, but we will use it in the future.
 
Regards,
Alistair
--
Alistair Crooks <agc@pkgsrc.org>