On Mon, 16 Dec 2002 21:12:52 +0100
Quentin Garnier <netbsd@quatriemek.com> wrote:

> No, the problem here is that the pkgsrc was only partly updated. Thus, the
> buildlink2.mk included was outdated WRT the pine package.
> 
> This is kind of a flaw in the buildlink design, but I don't think there's

*ehem* (see below) :p

> any simple solution to that : bumping a buildlinked package would mean
> updating all packages that depend on it, and not doing that is precisely
> one of the reasons buildlink is used.

Version dependancies can be specified, even in the buildlink
infrastructure. You could use something like:

BUILDLINK_DEPENDS.pico= pico>=X.Y.Z

But I do not know why we are not doing this on packages where we really
know which versions require. I think that the version specified inside the
buildlink2.mk file should serve as a "fallback".

Any comments?

-- 
Julio Merino (http://jmmv.dyndns.org/) <jmmv@menta.net>