Gentoo Logo
Gentoo Spaceship




Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date. GMANE provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.
c.f. bug 424647
List Archive: gentoo-dev
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-dev: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Headers:
To: gentoo-dev@g.o
From: Maciej Mrozowski <reavertm@...>
Subject: Re: Re: Over using preserve_old_lib, don't do that
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 15:57:01 +0200
On Thursday 15 of July 2010 12:14:29 Duncan wrote:
> Gilles Dartiguelongue posted on Thu, 15 Jul 2010 11:09:39 +0200 as
> 
> excerpted:
> > 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)
> itself.
> 
> 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 
controlled mechanisms.

-- 
regards
MM


Replies:
Re: Over using preserve_old_lib, don't do that
-- Duncan
References:
Over using preserve_old_lib, don't do that
-- Samuli Suominen
Re: Over using preserve_old_lib, don't do that
-- Gilles Dartiguelongue
Re: Over using preserve_old_lib, don't do that
-- Duncan
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-dev: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Previous by thread:
Re: Over using preserve_old_lib, don't do that
Next by thread:
Re: Re: Over using preserve_old_lib, don't do that
Previous by date:
Re: [bugzilla-daemon@g.o: [Bug 322157] [mail-filter/procmail] new ebuild + autocreate maildirs]
Next by date:
Re: Re: Over using preserve_old_lib, don't do that


Updated Jun 29, 2012

Summary: Archive of the gentoo-dev mailing list.

Donate to support our development efforts.

Copyright 2001-2013 Gentoo Foundation, Inc. Questions, Comments? Contact us.