| 1 |
On Fri, 31 Dec 2010 21:42:32 +0100 |
| 2 |
Enrico Weigelt <weigelt@×××××.de> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> The main problem IMHO is that portage doesn't record which libraries |
| 5 |
> some package links in, so it doesn't know which ones have to be |
| 6 |
> protected from unmerge (unless explicitly stated somewhere). |
| 7 |
> So I'd propose to add record that information. On next merge, |
| 8 |
> this information can be used for an automatic library-protect. |
| 9 |
> This would also record which libraries have been protected from |
| 10 |
> removal and for whom. Subsequent merges will update this that, |
| 11 |
> and once all importers have been unmerged, depclean can clean |
| 12 |
> up the leftover dirt. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> What do you think about this idea ? |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
You mean what do we think about portage-2.2 and preserved-libs? |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
-- |
| 19 |
Best regards, |
| 20 |
Michał Górny |
Archives