Re: ghostscript-agpl build failure on Linux

[Thomas Klausner <wiz%NetBSD.org@localhost>]

On Mon, Apr 14, 2025 at 08:34:28AM +0200, Thomas Klausner wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 13, 2025 at 10:30:36PM +0000, nia wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 13, 2025 at 08:39:05PM +0200, Thomas Klausner wrote:
> > > I think there should be a recursive bump for the packages using mit-krb5/heimdal.
> > 
> > I really don't like the idea of pretending there's an ABI break on every 
> > platform for a configuration change that only affects some platforms.
> 
> I understand, but we don't have a framework to differentiate this kind
> of changes per-platform.
> 
> > There's no need to waste energy rebuilding everything on NetBSD, for
> > instance. Needless recursive revbumps are the opposite of user-friendly.
> 
> I understand this as well. On NetBSD, there is no need for this, but
> on everything but FreeBSD & NetBSD, there is.
> 
> The change you committed leads to different binary packages from
> before. In this case, we always bump the PKGREVISION because
> otherwise, how can we tell which version of the program we have? That
> just leads to inconsistent binary package sets and fallout like the
> one reported in this thread, and more.
> 
> I think this doesn't mean we shouldn't bump the PKGREVISION, just that
> we should think twice before changing global settings like the default
> kerberos implementation.
> 
> So please do the recursive bump now.

I've done the bump now.
 Thomas