Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Brian Harring <ferringb@×××××.com>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC about another *DEPEND variable
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 15:14:21
Message-Id: 20060921150829.GF30105@seldon
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC about another *DEPEND variable by Mike Frysinger
On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 10:43:11AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Thursday 21 September 2006 10:04, Brian Harring wrote: > > I agree; while I'm labeling it ABI, includes both bad soname handling > > and seperate sonames. > > those people should be smacked (for the interest of disclosure, i have > violated the "bad soname" rule for the sake of following upstream) > > > Feel free to point out a 4th option if I'm missing it, but for the > > request, that's what exists afaict; meanwhile, stating that pkgs are > > being stupid, while true, doesn't actually solve the issue :) > > 4) portage maintains a list of ABI SONAMEs in use and does not unmerge the > library until all consumers are gone > > i'm referring to the specific file of course, not anything else in the > package ... so integrating the hack eutils.eclass:preserve_old_lib() into > portage so it isnt a hack (not a knock against the current implementation > here; it's always going to be a hack until portage manages proper unmerging > of the ABI library)
The reason folks aren't talking about using NEEDED is that NEEDED data is generated _after_ building; getting the info into the resolver up front allows for a helluva lot more options, and makes stuff like ensuring you have all sources required downloaded *prior* actually simple to do, rather then inserting recalculating hacks into the resolver. Clarifying the 'recalculating', what you're suggesting is effectivelly unbounded resolution, re-calculating at each step. That route is *very* nasty since you can't gurantee up front the resolution will work, let alone ensuring the bugger doesn't go cyclic. ~harring


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