| 1 |
On Sun, 26 Jun 2011 16:42:51 +0200 |
| 2 |
Fabian Groffen <grobian@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> On 26-06-2011 14:31:12 +0000, Duncan wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > Hmmm, except that portage-2.2 isn't stable yet... indeed it isn't |
| 5 |
> > > even out of alpha yet. Not going to unleash that on my |
| 6 |
> > > production systems. |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > Besides portage-2.2 still being unstable, preserved-libs "solves" |
| 9 |
> > the problem by keeping outdated, buggy and potentially security |
| 10 |
> > compromised libraries around. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Uhm, yeah, but it's better when you can actually reemerge python |
| 13 |
> (immediately) after an openssl upgrade, than that you have to hack |
| 14 |
> portage's includes not to attempt to load ssl stuff IMO. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
The fix for that is to slot things properly. You're screwed anyway if a |
| 17 |
preserved library tries to access installed data that has either been |
| 18 |
removed or upgraded to a new format that it doesn't recognise. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
-- |
| 21 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives