| 1 |
* Micha?? Górny <mgorny@g.o> schrieb: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> > What do you think about this idea ? |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> You mean what do we think about portage-2.2 and preserved-libs? |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Well, I'm still using portage-2.1, so I wans't aware of whats going |
| 8 |
on there. For now it seems the preservation is still done explicitly |
| 9 |
(preserve_old_lib calls in certain ebuilds ?). My proposal is to |
| 10 |
record the necessary information (eg. which so some executable/so |
| 11 |
is linked against) automatically - does portage-2.2 do that ? |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
BTW: several blog/maillist postings talked about the problem that |
| 14 |
even on recompile, older library versions could be linked in even |
| 15 |
on recompile. Somebody suggested to move away preserved libs to |
| 16 |
another directly (which is then added to ld.so.conf). What do you |
| 17 |
think about that ? |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Another approach could be building everything in an separate, |
| 20 |
minimal sysroot or chroot. (I admit, I have no idea how complex |
| 21 |
it would be to implement that in portage - my Briegel buildsystem |
| 22 |
does always does this) |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
cu |
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
---------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| 28 |
Enrico Weigelt, metux IT service -- http://www.metux.de/ |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
phone: +49 36207 519931 email: weigelt@×××××.de |
| 31 |
mobile: +49 151 27565287 icq: 210169427 skype: nekrad666 |
| 32 |
---------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| 33 |
Embedded-Linux / Portierung / Opensource-QM / Verteilte Systeme |
| 34 |
---------------------------------------------------------------------- |
Archives