Binary packages not rebuilding against updated libraries

[Rainer Müller]

On 2018-04-26 15:36, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
> Not sure. I did come up with a better solution for the ABI bump
> problem, though, and wanted to run it by you.
> 
> So rather than just guessing based on things like major version of a
> library whether dependents need to be bumped, I would suggest we add
> an "abiversion" keyword. Changing it in any way would imply that ports
> depending on that port would be rebuilt.

All recursive dependents? That could be a long list and many unnecessary
rebuilds. You only need to rebuild ports that actually link with the
library, but that information is not available.

> This would imply that there would be a need to be able to query what
> "abiversion" is currently installed.

Users would not get any upgrades for ports unless epoch/version/revision
was increased. How would you recognize a port as outdated after a
dependency increased its abiversion?

We should not rebuild an archive that has the same identifier of
name/version/revision. Any changes to the contents of an archive has to
imply a change in the identifier to be reproducible. Otherwise you would
get bug reports against @1.2_3 which is a different @1.2_3 than you have
on your system.

Rainer