On 16/04/2004, at 9:43 PM, Rene Hexel wrote:

> On 16/04/2004, at 6:40 PM, Thomas Klausner wrote:
>
>> I thought major shlib bump was a reason to bump DEPENDS?
>> After all, there is not *.so.200 after the update, so old binary
>> packages _will_ fail. And I don't think that adding such links
>> (.so.200 -> .so.400) is a good idea.
>
>   Neither do I.  But I don't see how bumping depends will help with 
> old binary packages.  They would still install against a newer library 
> and fail, regardless of whether RECOMMENDED or DEPENDS was bumped.

   To elaborate some more: the way to fix this problem is to bump the 
PKGREVISIONs of the packages that depend on this library.  This way, we 
ensure that new binary packages (with a distinct version number) can be 
uploaded onto ftp.

   But this is orthogonal to the question of whether 
BUILDLINK_RECOMMENDED or BUILDLINK_DEPENDS should then be changed.  If 
packages build fine against both versions of the library (old and new), 
BUILDLINK_RECOMMENDED should be changed [*].  Only if (a sufficient 
number of) packages require the new version of the library (e.g. such 
as in the recent gtk/gnome update), should BUILDLINK_DEPENDS be 
changed.

   Cheers
       ,
    Rene

[*] this will still record an updated dependency in binary packages 
unless overridden with IGNORE_RECOMMENDED.  But binary packages created 
with IGNORE_RECOMMENDED will by default refuse to install with pkg_add 
now.