Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Thoughts about broken package handling
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 05:48:36
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Thoughts about broken package handling by Fabian Groffen
On Sun, 26 Jun 2011 16:42:51 +0200
Fabian Groffen <grobian@g.o> wrote:
> On 26-06-2011 14:31:12 +0000, Duncan wrote: > > > Hmmm, except that portage-2.2 isn't stable yet... indeed it isn't > > > even out of alpha yet. Not going to unleash that on my > > > production systems. > > > > Besides portage-2.2 still being unstable, preserved-libs "solves" > > the problem by keeping outdated, buggy and potentially security > > compromised libraries around. > > Uhm, yeah, but it's better when you can actually reemerge python > (immediately) after an openssl upgrade, than that you have to hack > portage's includes not to attempt to load ssl stuff IMO.
The fix for that is to slot things properly. You're screwed anyway if a preserved library tries to access installed data that has either been removed or upgraded to a new format that it doesn't recognise. -- Ciaran McCreesh


File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Thoughts about broken package handling Graham Murray <graham@×××××××××××.uk>