| 1 |
On 12/31/2010 12:42 PM, Enrico Weigelt wrote: |
| 2 |
> The main problem IMHO is that portage doesn't record which libraries |
| 3 |
> some package links in, so it doesn't know which ones have to be |
| 4 |
> protected from unmerge (unless explicitly stated somewhere). |
| 5 |
> So I'd propose to add record that information. On next merge, |
| 6 |
> this information can be used for an automatic library-protect. |
| 7 |
> This would also record which libraries have been protected from |
| 8 |
> removal and for whom. Subsequent merges will update this that, |
| 9 |
> and once all importers have been unmerged, depclean can clean |
| 10 |
> up the leftover dirt. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
As other's have mentioned, this is already implemented in portage-2.2 |
| 13 |
with FEATURES=preserve-libs and @preserved-rebuild. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
However, before this feature is unmasked, I think that it's critical to |
| 16 |
implement bug 192319 [1] (abi-slot-deps) in order to ensure that reverse |
| 17 |
dependencies of preserved libraries are rebuilt at the earliest possible |
| 18 |
opportunity since this will minimize the possibility of symbol |
| 19 |
collisions [2]. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
[1] http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=192319 |
| 22 |
[2] |
| 23 |
http://blog.flameeyes.eu/2008/06/30/a-few-risks-i-see-related-to-the-new-portage-2-2-preserve-libs-behaviour |
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
Thanks, |
| 26 |
Zac |
Archives