On Wed, 29 Dec 2004, Johnny C. Lam wrote:

> > Maybe I'm missing something, but when should we bump BUILDLINK_DEPENDS
> > if this is not the case?
> >
> > Also, this SONAME change will affect binary packages of dependent
> > packages.  So why no PKGREVISION bump for them?
>
> I admit that I'm fuzzy about when we should do PKGREVISION bumps, too.
> Can anyone else please clarify this matter?

Because there is no *official* published policy about BUILDLINK_DEPENDS vs.
BUILDLINK_RECOMMENDED, this is also unclear.  See my proposal:

    http://mail-index.netbsd.org/tech-pkg/2004/11/07/0008.html

It allows people to avoid the latest ABI bump if they are willing to take
the risk (IGNORE_RECOMMENDED=YES), while keeping the default to be
ABI-compatible compilation only.  That proposal also implies that
BUILDLINK_DEPENDS shouldn't be bumped unless there's some major changes in
the source API that require it; rather, BUILDLINK_RECOMMENDED is bumped more
often, for ABI and/or security changes.

As a result of this proposal, PKGREVISION bumps should happen whenever
BUILDLINK_RECOMMENDED (or BUILDLINK_DEPENDS, if it is pulled forward for
some reason or other) is bumped, and such PKGREVISION bumps should happen to
only packages *directly* including the bl3 file in question.

There are special cases where there may be exceptions to these proposed
rules, but in general, it should prevent too broad of bump sweeps throughout
pkgsrc.

-- 
-- Todd Vierling <tv@duh.org> <tv@pobox.com>