1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
2 |
Hash: SHA256 |
3 |
|
4 |
On 30/06/12 01:30 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote: |
5 |
> El sáb, 30-06-2012 a las 13:17 -0400, Ian Stakenvicius escribió: |
6 |
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 |
7 |
>> |
8 |
>> On 30/06/12 11:16 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
9 |
>>> On Saturday 30 June 2012 07:22:39 Zac Medico wrote: |
10 |
>>>> On 06/30/2012 04:07 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote: |
11 |
>>>>> I would like to discuss a bit more issues like: |
12 |
>>>>> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=423087 |
13 |
>>>>> |
14 |
>>>>> Even if there are "a lot" of packages that can cause this |
15 |
>>>>> breakage when downgraded, I think it should be prevented |
16 |
>>>>> and package managers shouldn't try to downgrade this kind |
17 |
>>>>> of packages as they will later cause a total breakage. |
18 |
>>>>> People is not supposed to know that downgrading some |
19 |
>>>>> package system will, for example, have an unusable gcc. |
20 |
>>>> |
21 |
>>>> It seems like a die in pkg_pretend would serve pretty well. |
22 |
>>> |
23 |
>>> doing it on a per-ebuild basis doesn't make much sense. a |
24 |
>>> simple version compare (like we do in glibc as an exception to |
25 |
>>> this rule because of its much wider implication) is incorrect: |
26 |
>>> the new version might not introduce any new symbols compared to |
27 |
>>> the old one, and even if it has, other packages might not have |
28 |
>>> been linked against the new symbols. -mike |
29 |
>> |
30 |
>> Instead of preventing downgrade wouldn't it make more sense to |
31 |
>> figure out a way to force a rebuild on @system or @toolchain or |
32 |
>> whatever bits are broken as soon as the downgrade occurs, rather |
33 |
>> than just making it a one-way ticket? If we could sort this out |
34 |
>> (and sub-slots may help with this, but probably we'll need some |
35 |
>> extra work too) then we could probably support switching from |
36 |
>> ~arch to arch at a whim.. Not necessarily a bad goal. |
37 |
>> |
38 |
> |
39 |
> The problem is that, in this kind of breakage, gcc breaks as soon |
40 |
> as zlib is downgraded and, then, user cannot compile anything, |
41 |
> needing to manually find missing zlib lib from any other |
42 |
> distributions binaries, put it in the system and re-emerge zlib :| |
43 |
> |
44 |
|
45 |
..but preserved-libs would keep that from happening wouldn't it? ie, |
46 |
the lib itself would stick around until gcc isn't using it anymore... |
47 |
|
48 |
so it'd just be a matter of an interim issue until preserved-libs is |
49 |
in stable portage ... and i'm guessing something that would suffice |
50 |
here is a blockage on downgrades of anything belonging to the contents |
51 |
of /var/db/edb/{sys-devel/gcc,sys-libs/glibc}-[0-9]*/NEEDED ? |
52 |
|
53 |
(apologies for the bad hack:) |
54 |
|
55 |
cat /var/db/pkg/{sys-devel/gcc,sys-libs/glibc}-[0-9]*/NEEDED \ |
56 |
|sed -e 's#^/[^ ]* ##' |sed -e "s/,/\n/g" |sort -u \ |
57 |
|xargs equery b |awk '{print $1}' |sort -u \ |
58 |
|sed 's/^/</' |
59 |
|
60 |
^^^ that's your build-preserving package.mask , yes? |
61 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
62 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) |
63 |
|
64 |
iF4EAREIAAYFAk/vO4gACgkQ2ugaI38ACPBUvwEApQAljVOj492q2/bhttriqWgz |
65 |
iu8FZdsh1EHMeYaHxi0A/iZNY28W9NT5ynO6B42CAxpYpWym2SIc4JflTu/7IK1h |
66 |
=3pcd |
67 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |