Re: [DPorts] The only packages available are for DragonFly 3.4

[John Marino <dragonflybsd@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 7/25/2013 15:06, Justin Sherrill wrote:
> If there's packages that build correctly and have no dependencies on
> any failing package, why not update them? Is it because the rsync is
> set to clear out unmatched packages at the destination, or is there
> another reason?

Flip the question.
What is so important about this update that it has to published
immediately?  Especially when we were publishing only twice a year
previously?

Also you are fatally simplifying the problem.  curl had no dependencies
on any failing package.  Had we pushed the new curl, we would have
broken hundreds of packages.  It's not the dependencies as much it is
the *reverse* dependencies, and those cascade 3 or more levels up.

There's no reason to rashly update these packages.  They can wait until
the majority of them are building together.  Over time these "broken
only on DragonFly" incidents will subside in frequency.

FreeBSD does the same thing behind the scenes.  If they remove
functionality, e.g. "USE_ICONV", they have to convert every package that
used that feature before removing it.  Likely we have to do the same and
that means building them all again.  It's better to say with the
previous good state than mix them.


> I'd hate to think some arbitrary broken package with, say, 50
> dependencies keeps updates from happening for the other 19,950
> packages.

Those 50 packages are reverse dependencies, which have exponential
ramifications  One package can easily prevent 10,000 or more packages
from building.  It's just the way it is.

That's why FreeBSD does these full bulk builds on changes that can have
this impact.

John