| 1 |
On Tuesday 15 May 2007, Jakub Moc wrote: |
| 2 |
> Mike Frysinger napsal(a): |
| 3 |
> > On Tuesday 15 May 2007, Caleb Tennis wrote: |
| 4 |
> >> * - This version has a new soname, so it will require a revdep-rebuild, |
| 5 |
> >> which is probably why it hasn't been stabilized as of now. |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > so add a call to preserve_old_lib / preserve_old_lib_notify like should |
| 8 |
> > have been in there in the first place ... see latest readline ebuild for |
| 9 |
> > an example |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> If you read the bug with loads of duplicates; |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
i'm assuming you mean 128069 since you failed to mention what bug you're |
| 14 |
actually referring to |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> it's been avoided as well, |
| 17 |
> because it was considered unsafe for the same reason as slotting. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
ha, i doubt it ... the code snippet i referred to in readline is not even |
| 20 |
close to being the same thing as SLOTTing |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
if you're referring to the comment you made (which you should have just posted |
| 23 |
in the e-mail instead of telling people to go find some random bug): |
| 24 |
Because it's not safe here, stuff can continue to link against the old |
| 25 |
libexpat ABI. Again, read the backlog before posting yet another comment |
| 26 |
here. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
revdep-rebuild will rebuild applications in the proper order which makes this |
| 29 |
comment irrelevant |
| 30 |
-mike |
Archives