| 1 |
On Monday 10 May 2010 20:22:28 Peng Hsin-shun wrote: |
| 2 |
> Mask it. It's too new to adapt. |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> 2010/5/11 Gilles Dartiguelongue <eva@g.o> |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> > Hello guys, |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > as I'm sure some of you already experimented, the libpng upgrade didn't |
| 9 |
> > exactly went smoothly on my chroots. Reason seems to be that libpng |
| 10 |
> > usage is odd, it provides both libpng14.* and libpng.* files. Some |
| 11 |
> > packages likes to use versioned libs while some other don't and it seems |
| 12 |
> > to lead to giant mess in *.la files (for example). |
| 13 |
> > |
| 14 |
> > My question are: |
| 15 |
> > * is there a draft news item as a simple revdep-rebuild or portage |
| 16 |
> > |
| 17 |
> > preserved-libs feature doesn't cut it (for good reasons) that I could |
| 18 |
> > test ? |
| 19 |
> > |
| 20 |
> > * what is the recommended way to link to libpng (versioned lib or not) |
| 21 |
> > * corollary to previous question, should we enforce link to versioned |
| 22 |
> > |
| 23 |
> > lib only ? |
| 24 |
> > |
| 25 |
> > -- |
| 26 |
> > Gilles Dartiguelongue <eva@g.o> |
| 27 |
> > Gentoo |
| 28 |
Masking it is not an option anymore since the majority of ~arch systems are |
| 29 |
already using libpng-1.4. If you mask it you will create a confusion and you |
| 30 |
will have to rebuild the same packages again. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
Markos Chandras (hwoarang) |
| 35 |
Gentoo Linux Developer |
| 36 |
Web: http://hwoarang.silverarrow.org |
Archives