1 |
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 10:01 AM, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote: |
2 |
> On 8/10/10 4:22 AM, Eray Aslan wrote: |
3 |
>> 1. Is this OK or should we file bugs against binaries in {/bin,/sbin} linking |
4 |
>> against libraries in /usr/lib? Fix is relatively easy in general (give |
5 |
>> --libdir=/lib against the config script) |
6 |
> |
7 |
> I'd suggest a fix that is guaranteed to work: make portage refuse to |
8 |
> install anything in /bin that depends on /usr (based on say ldd check). |
9 |
|
10 |
not a chance. some of the reasons why this isnt realistic: |
11 |
- ldd is not portable |
12 |
- ldd *executes* things |
13 |
- ldd cannot easily/sanely handle a mix of installed system paths and |
14 |
temporary paths ($D) |
15 |
- ldd will not work with cross-compiling |
16 |
- ldd shows the entire dependency tree, not just the program in |
17 |
question ... so one broken library can easily cause other packages to |
18 |
be flagged |
19 |
- even if ldd showed only direct dependencies, one broken library |
20 |
package could break the packages that use it |
21 |
- prevents historical compat links that are otherwise irrelevant |
22 |
- the vast majority of the time, users dont give a sh*t, and this |
23 |
doesnt affect them -- people who do a sep /usr mount from / are a |
24 |
small fraction |
25 |
-mike |