| 1 |
begin quote |
| 2 |
On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 20:58:01 +0100 |
| 3 |
Paul de Vrieze <pauldv@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
> On Thursday 05 February 2004 20:53, Spider wrote: |
| 6 |
> > Could work, but isn't this a clumsier version of : |
| 7 |
> > track ldd of foopack. |
| 8 |
> > resolve all .so files |
| 9 |
> > store both lists, and if the .so aren't there, spit out the "last |
| 10 |
> > seen as "<package>" as a hint and refuse to install? |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> This would work at packaging time, not at install time. Basically what |
| 13 |
> we need is to identify incompatible library changes (besides never |
| 14 |
> installing with an older version than build with) some way. We could |
| 15 |
> use a LIBVER variable for that. It would be similar in function as |
| 16 |
> SLOT, but it would not say anything about ability to coexist. It just |
| 17 |
> says something about library conflicts. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> > (still dirty.. but better than what RPM does ;) |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> Binary packages are dirty ;-) Anyone some idea what debian does to |
| 22 |
> this respect? |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Can you explain more? When would LIBVER be set? by whom? (developer? no |
| 26 |
thanks.. :P ) and woudn't there need to be one LIBVER per .so file that |
| 27 |
a package installs? |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
My Idea was meant for "build package" time, yes. To make the mapping of: |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
so for the package "slocate", we get the following entry: |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
libc.so.6 sys-libs/glibc-2.3.3_pre20040117 |
| 36 |
/lib/ld-linux.so.2 sys-libs/glibc-2.3.3_pre20040117 |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
And so on. This would pretty easily be added at GRP create time (okay, |
| 39 |
it adds some overhead to all binary packages... thats not too god, but |
| 40 |
I'm not that sure we care..) |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
And when the binary is installed, it can scan the system of "missing" |
| 43 |
files, if it finds any, balk and die, telling both what .so is missing, |
| 44 |
and the package it was last seen in. This would also help us doing QA |
| 45 |
and finding missing dependency links. ( things that are in the |
| 46 |
"linking" list of resolved packages, but not in the RDEPEND tree ) |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
and yes. its dirty. its rpmish. and I'd love to see a better thing. |
| 51 |
however, its better than the thing we have currently. |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
Any ideas? |
| 54 |
|
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
//Spider |
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
-- |
| 60 |
begin .signature |
| 61 |
This is a .signature virus! Please copy me into your .signature! |
| 62 |
See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information. |
| 63 |
end |
Archives