| 1 |
On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 11:01:40 -0400 Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o> |
| 2 |
wrote: |
| 3 |
| On Thursday 21 September 2006 10:54, Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
| 4 |
| > Yes, I agree with you. For example, take expat. The maintainers have |
| 5 |
| > refused to allow both versions to exist simultaneously on a system |
| 6 |
| > because it apparently causes more breakage than just breaking every |
| 7 |
| > app on your system by removing .so.0. |
| 8 |
| |
| 9 |
| that is the exact case portage should be handling for you |
| 10 |
| |
| 11 |
| it would go "oh hey, check out libexpat.so.0 ... some things seem to |
| 12 |
| want it ... HEY USER, you need to rebuild: xxxxxxxx" ... once all the |
| 13 |
| packages still consuming libexpat.so.0 are rebuilt, portage could |
| 14 |
| silently trim it from the system |
| 15 |
| |
| 16 |
| complicated ? not really, scanelf can produce all this information |
| 17 |
| in an easily digestable format |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
How would it know what other files are required? For example, if |
| 20 |
libexpat.so.0 were to rely upon /usr/share/expat-0/config , how would |
| 21 |
the package manager know not to clobber that file? Or are you |
| 22 |
suggesting leaving (or reparenting, if you prefer) all a package's |
| 23 |
files, not just the .so files? |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Or a related question: what proportion of breakages will be fixed |
| 26 |
merely by keeping .so files and nothing else around? Will implementing |
| 27 |
this prevent enough breakages to make it worthwhile? |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
| 31 |
Mail : ciaranm at ciaranm.org |
| 32 |
Web : http://ciaranm.org/ |
| 33 |
as-needed is broken : http://ciaranm.org/show_post.pl?post_id=13 |
Archives