It's been a slow start due to the time it has taken me to understand
the dynamic linker and the various python modules in portage.
Initially, I intended to understand the current revdep-rebuild
implementation, but trying to follow that monstrosity of a bash script
only caused my eyes to glaze over. :)  So instead, I decided to go
another route and write an implementation of my own and deal with any
problems as they arise, rather than initially basing my implementation
off of the bash script.

I put the new RevdepSet module in a separate file. Should I instead
include this in one of the existing files? I couldn't find a clear
description of the purpose of the set classes within each file, so I
simply placed it in a new one. Also, did anyone have a more succinct,
descriptive name suggestion for the set already in mind?

Currently the class is nothing more than a skeleton of a package set
class, which I've been using to test the various dbapi interfaces.  It
does not build a set of useful atoms yet.

My plan over the next few days is to build a list of "needed"
libraries (either through dbapi or my own implementation similar to
linkmap), a list of installed libraries (I'm still unsure of the best
way to build this list.  Simply searching through lib directories
perhaps?), and comparing the two lists to find which are missing.  The
packages are already associated with the libraries in var/db/pkg, so
that shouldn't be a problem.  I'll see how that works and go from
there.

Are there any future plans to integrate the concept of recompiling
necessary binaries against newly updated libraries when upgrading
through emerge? Or is it more likely to stay as is with preserved-lib
functionality? I was just wondering about the futility of this whole
project in the future. :)

Should emerge revdep-rebuild rebuild the packages that are compiled
against preserved libraries? I assume no, since that functionality is
already present with preserved-libs, but I wanted to be sure.


Thanks,
Lucian
-- 
gentoo-soc@g.o mailing list