Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Ciaran McCreesh <ciaranm@×××××××.org>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC about another *DEPEND variable
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2006 02:39:11
Message-Id: 20060924033621.32c44881@snowdrop.home
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC about another *DEPEND variable by Mike Frysinger
On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 11:01:40 -0400 Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o>
| On Thursday 21 September 2006 10:54, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
| > Yes, I agree with you. For example, take expat. The maintainers have
| > refused to allow both versions to exist simultaneously on a system
| > because it apparently causes more breakage than just breaking every
| > app on your system by removing .so.0.
| that is the exact case portage should be handling for you
| it would go "oh hey, check out ... some things seem to
| want it ... HEY USER, you need to rebuild: xxxxxxxx" ... once all the
| packages still consuming are rebuilt, portage could
| silently trim it from the system
| complicated ?  not really, scanelf can produce all this information
| in an easily digestable format

How would it know what other files are required? For example, if were to rely upon /usr/share/expat-0/config , how would
the package manager know not to clobber that file? Or are you
suggesting leaving (or reparenting, if you prefer) all a package's
files, not just the .so files?

Or a related question: what proportion of breakages will be fixed
merely by keeping .so files and nothing else around? Will implementing
this prevent enough breakages to make it worthwhile?

Ciaran McCreesh
Mail                : ciaranm at
Web                 :
as-needed is broken :


File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC about another *DEPEND variable Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o>