| 1 |
On 2013-01-31, Nilesh Govindrajan wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 7:05 AM, Mike Gilbert <floppym@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
>> On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Yohan Pereira |
| 5 |
>> <yohan.pereira@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 6 |
>>> On 30/01/13 at 11:09pm, Nilesh Govindrajan wrote: |
| 7 |
>>>> Since Gentoo updates libraries very quickly, I'm wondering if it is |
| 8 |
>>>> safe to use the binary version? Has anyone faced library breakages on |
| 9 |
>>>> this? |
| 10 |
>>>> |
| 11 |
>>>> Chromium is easily recompiled with new libraries and you don't have a |
| 12 |
>>>> broken browser, which won't really be the case with the binary |
| 13 |
>>>> version. |
| 14 |
>>> |
| 15 |
>>> I've used the binary version (google-chrome) for a while and never |
| 16 |
>>> had any breakages. I guess if there's a library update that could |
| 17 |
>>> potentially break google-chrome the gentoo devs would add a blocker so |
| 18 |
>>> you wont be able to install the 2 at the same time. |
| 19 |
>>> |
| 20 |
>> |
| 21 |
>> Or I can just bundle a copy of the necessary libraries, similar to |
| 22 |
>> what I have done for libudev.so.0. |
| 23 |
>> |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> Sounds good. I guess I'll switch to binary chrome then. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Also, I suppose that, if there were library incompatibilities, the |
| 28 |
package would never go stable, or would at least, like Yohan said, lead |
| 29 |
to a block/version dependency. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
Nuno Silva (aka njsg) |
| 33 |
http://njsg.sdf-eu.org/ |
Archives