That Subject is incorrect.
Unless pkg_add is going to start doing a stat() of /bin/cat and demanding you run sysupgrade INCLUDING THE REBOOT if the file is more than a day old? or is it two days? Or is it a week? What has happened for years now is that if you attempt to upgrade an old base snapshot with new packages, you get nice messages which tell you what libraries are incompatible, and then you it is clear to everyone what is going on and they take the correct action. But I guess your real message here is the library checking code in pkg_add can be deleted, because telling everyone "you must have upgraded to a new snapshot INCLUDING THE REBOOT" is the new way, so why check libraries?!! they will always have the new libraries, because you are saying that is the ONLY RIGHT WAY. You are wrong. We will not demand that people aggressively jump to new snapshots. Look, you failed to communicate with the developers ahead of time and then you failed to communicate with the users _after the fact_, and it required complaints on public and developer forums before you acted by telling people their process is broken. No, sorry, you are incorrect blaming users for not updating to new snapshots. What is wrong here is your development process. Marc Espie <es...@nerim.net> wrote: > If you don't update base first (as you should always do), > recent package snapshots will break. > > Code to parse the hash after > @option always-update <hvalue> > was added on May 26. > > Package snapshots built after May 28 use that new syntax. > > You will notice fairly early, as quirks uses > @option always-update > > the new package will refuse to install with an error > from the packing-list parsing code: > > "Unknown option: always-update <base64gibberish>" >
