| 1 |
On Thursday 05 February 2004 21:34, Spider wrote: |
| 2 |
> begin quote |
| 3 |
> On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 20:58:01 +0100 |
| 4 |
> Can you explain more? When would LIBVER be set? by whom? (developer? no |
| 5 |
> thanks.. :P ) and woudn't there need to be one LIBVER per .so file that |
| 6 |
> a package installs? |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
In most cases we could probably derive it automatically from the soname of a |
| 9 |
library, in special cases LIBVER would need to be set. Basically the idea |
| 10 |
breaks through the one LIBVER per .so by needing a developer to define a |
| 11 |
different LIBVER when an incompatible library change is introduced in the |
| 12 |
package (in any file) (the contents of LIBVER don't matter). In some cases |
| 13 |
this will be automatically detected, in some cases not, in which the |
| 14 |
developer needs to fix this. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> My Idea was meant for "build package" time, yes. To make the mapping of: |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> so for the package "slocate", we get the following entry: |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> libc.so.6 sys-libs/glibc-2.3.3_pre20040117 |
| 21 |
> /lib/ld-linux.so.2 sys-libs/glibc-2.3.3_pre20040117 |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> And so on. This would pretty easily be added at GRP create time (okay, |
| 24 |
> it adds some overhead to all binary packages... thats not too god, but |
| 25 |
> I'm not that sure we care..) |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
That would be "enhanced rpm style", which would probably work too. It would |
| 28 |
however not solve the problem of determining which versions are actually |
| 29 |
compatible (one could use sonames for that) |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
> And when the binary is installed, it can scan the system of "missing" |
| 32 |
> files, if it finds any, balk and die, telling both what .so is missing, |
| 33 |
> and the package it was last seen in. This would also help us doing QA |
| 34 |
> and finding missing dependency links. ( things that are in the |
| 35 |
> "linking" list of resolved packages, but not in the RDEPEND tree ) |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
> and yes. its dirty. its rpmish. and I'd love to see a better thing. |
| 38 |
> however, its better than the thing we have currently. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
Anything is better than nothing (which we have now) ;-) |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
> Any ideas? |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
Don't have binary packages ;-) |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
Paul |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
-- |
| 49 |
Paul de Vrieze |
| 50 |
Gentoo Developer |
| 51 |
Mail: pauldv@g.o |
| 52 |
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net |
Archives