| 1 |
begin quote |
| 2 |
On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 00:34:28 -0500 |
| 3 |
Grant Goodyear <g2boojum@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> *Sigh* Okay, it seems that I'm brain dead tonight, but I'm completely |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> confused. Exactly what is the issue (in terms that old/tired folks |
| 10 |
> can understand) |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Scenario: |
| 14 |
I just found a system image around, up-to-date (then) version of |
| 15 |
Gentoo running openssl 0.9.6. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
I took a set of GRP builds from a current system, did 'emerge -ik |
| 18 |
gnome kde' on it. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Ran revdep-rebuild because almost nothing worked, found out that since I |
| 21 |
hadn't updated the whole system, only parts, openssl was still at 0.9.6, |
| 22 |
whereas all binaries considered "thats okay for RDEPEND" ... And |
| 23 |
thereafter fell over with linkingerrors. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
So my question was for the generic case of things like this, Can the |
| 27 |
binaries be made more reliable? |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Perhaps this sort of thing be worked around in portage-code? ( wrap a |
| 30 |
consistency check of linking before installing? demand that a system is |
| 31 |
"updated" ? ) |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Or should binaries have more metadata in them, perhaps a specific |
| 34 |
requirement for libraries? (sheesh, then its down to RPM again. that's |
| 35 |
bad. ) |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
Is it easier to understand the problem now, Grant? |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
//Spider |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
-- |
| 45 |
begin .signature |
| 46 |
This is a .signature virus! Please copy me into your .signature! |
| 47 |
See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information. |
| 48 |
end |
Archives