| 1 |
On Thursday 05 February 2004 21:13, Olivier Crête wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, 2004-02-05 at 20:58, Paul de Vrieze wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Binary packages are dirty ;-) Anyone some idea what debian does to this |
| 4 |
> > respect? |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> They are indeed dirty... Debian has a script that does an LDD on every |
| 7 |
> executable and associates the .so deps with specific packages versions |
| 8 |
> and add those as dependencies.. But they dont have use flags, etc... |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
This is what rpm does too. For useflags we need useflag deps. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> There is no way around storing the exact dependencies of .so versions in |
| 14 |
> the packages I think... The suggestion that I saw of storing from which |
| 15 |
> package/version they were last seen seems the best thing to do.. So we |
| 16 |
> can at least give the users a hint on what to do... |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
I think that would be a first start. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> Its better to just have portage stop with "library version of XX does |
| 21 |
> not match YY, you can not install this binary package, recompile |
| 22 |
> yourself". Even if it does reject stuff that would normally work, that's |
| 23 |
> probably better than accepting stuff that breaks.. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Maybe allow forcing, but indeed. I still like LIBVER though as it will give |
| 26 |
some hint on how likely something is to be working. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Further as some other "suggestion" it would be nice if you could just do |
| 29 |
emerge --rebuild foobar-1.2.3.tbz2 and have portage extract the ebuild and |
| 30 |
rebuild it. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Paul |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
Paul de Vrieze |
| 36 |
Gentoo Developer |
| 37 |
Mail: pauldv@g.o |
| 38 |
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net |
Archives