Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Fabian Groffen <grobian@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Thoughts about broken package handling
Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2011 14:44:13
Message-Id: 20110626144251.GP14065@gentoo.org
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] Re: Thoughts about broken package handling by Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net>
On 26-06-2011 14:31:12 +0000, Duncan wrote:
> > Hmmm, except that portage-2.2 isn't stable yet... indeed it isn't even > > out of alpha yet. Not going to unleash that on my production systems. > > Besides portage-2.2 still being unstable, preserved-libs "solves" the > problem by keeping outdated, buggy and potentially security compromised > libraries around.
Uhm, yeah, but it's better when you can actually reemerge python (immediately) after an openssl upgrade, than that you have to hack portage's includes not to attempt to load ssl stuff IMO.
> revdep-rebuild OTOH, has a more straightforward approach, simply > detecting binaries that depended on now-absent libs and rebuilding them > to depend on what's currently available instead.
Yup, but when the library is already gone, you sometimes cannot run the necessary tools any more. Funny one is bash, for instance. -- Fabian Groffen Gentoo on a different level

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Thoughts about broken package handling Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com>
[gentoo-dev] Re: Thoughts about broken package handling Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net>