On Thursday 15 of July 2010 12:14:29 Duncan wrote:
> Gilles Dartiguelongue posted on Thu, 15 Jul 2010 11:09:39 +0200 as
> > Le jeudi 15 juillet 2010 à 09:49 +0100, Mike Auty a écrit : [...]
> >> I can live with this for in places where it causes massive breakage
> >> (openssl/libpng/libjpg), because it's genuinely useful, but I think it
> >> should be restricted to such important packages, or at least disabled
> >> by FEATURES="-preserve-libs".
> >> Ideally, these calls should either adhere to FEATURES="-preserve-libs",
> >> or there should be a tool that can identify which files portage has
> >> preserved, and allow easy rebuilding of dependent packages, and
> >> removal.
> >> At the moment, I'm having to manually grep ebuilds, ls the libraries
> >> and run revdep-rebuild over them one at a time...
> > These sound like very good ideas to me.
> If I have FEATURE=-preserve-libs, that's what I want. Exceptions should
> be limited to what will break the toolchain (including revdep-rebuild
> here, since that's what's normally used to get out of the situation)
> If there was a way to handle it so a general revdep-rebuild run would
> still detect the preserved library as missing and do the necessary
> rebuilds, it'd be one thing, but if the libraries are there, it figures
> things are OK unless you've fed it that specific library, thereby making a
> general revdep-rebuld run useless at the very task it was designed to fix.
> Talking about which... What about creating an eutils (or whatever)
> function to handle the critical preservations, having it build a
> centralized list of them somewhere, and having a revdep-rebuild mode that
> will treat that list as if it had been fed in with --library on the
> command line? Make revdep-rebuild able to run this mode either on its
> own, or as part of an otherwise general run, and then you can have
> packages (or the package-manager itself, if it uses the list as well)
> preserve libs as they wish, without interfering with the ability of revdep-
> rebuild to detect and resolve the issues in a normal run.
And what about using portage 2.2 and be done with it. I don't see the point in
reinventing the wheel yet again.
Imho, revdep-rebuild and all 'misc' tools requiring users' good will like
python-updater should be obsolete and phased out in favour of package manager