On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 11:01:40 -0400 Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o>
wrote:
| On Thursday 21 September 2006 10:54, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
| > Yes, I agree with you. For example, take expat. The maintainers have
| > refused to allow both versions to exist simultaneously on a system
| > because it apparently causes more breakage than just breaking every
| > app on your system by removing .so.0.
| 
| that is the exact case portage should be handling for you
| 
| it would go "oh hey, check out libexpat.so.0 ... some things seem to
| want it ... HEY USER, you need to rebuild: xxxxxxxx" ... once all the
| packages still consuming libexpat.so.0 are rebuilt, portage could
| silently trim it from the system
| 
| complicated ?  not really, scanelf can produce all this information
| in an easily digestable format

How would it know what other files are required? For example, if
libexpat.so.0 were to rely upon /usr/share/expat-0/config , how would
the package manager know not to clobber that file? Or are you
suggesting leaving (or reparenting, if you prefer) all a package's
files, not just the .so files?

Or a related question: what proportion of breakages will be fixed
merely by keeping .so files and nothing else around? Will implementing
this prevent enough breakages to make it worthwhile?

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh
Mail                : ciaranm at ciaranm.org
Web                 : http://ciaranm.org/
as-needed is broken : http://ciaranm.org/show_post.pl?post_id=13