1 |
On Sun, 2005-12-11 at 20:40 +0100, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote: |
2 |
> On Sunday 11 December 2005 19:29, Spider (D.m.D. Lj.) wrote: |
3 |
> > How will you deal with the packages that build against glibc iconv but |
4 |
> > not against the separated? |
5 |
> I'll patch them, if they are common packages, ports from FreeBSD, NetBSD, |
6 |
> OpenBSD, DragonFly BSD or DarwinPorts will have patches for them, as they use |
7 |
> libiconv. |
8 |
|
9 |
Sounds good enough : ) |
10 |
|
11 |
> |
12 |
> > There used to be a lot of issues here, which caused me to hard-mask |
13 |
> > iconv ( still should be hard masked for most/all glibc-based systems ) |
14 |
> > due to the split and mainline packages running out of sync. |
15 |
> That's why the virtual consider glibc first, for systems where glibc is not |
16 |
> present it will go with libiconv. Everyone using glibc *must not* use |
17 |
> libiconv, and it *has* to remain hardmasked for them. |
18 |
|
19 |
Yeah, I certainly -HOPE- that it will retain its blocker vs. glibc, or |
20 |
things may slip downhill on a certain rollercoasterride of party and |
21 |
fun. Not to mention that they claim the same files ;) |
22 |
|
23 |
|
24 |
> But libiconv is unmasked for Gentoo/FreeBSD, Gentoo/NetBSD and Gentoo/OpenBSD |
25 |
> systems, where it's needed to have iconv() function. |
26 |
|
27 |
Aye, I just raised the point that such packages -do- exist and will(I'm |
28 |
still not an optimist) be an issue in the future (tm) for you : ) |
29 |
|
30 |
|
31 |
Anyhow, as long as this doesn't impose the case where some poor sod will |
32 |
get iconv on his glibc system I'm quite happy with the change, no worry |
33 |
from me, and do go ahead with the updated deps for all I care. Just try |
34 |
not to make a mess of things *wink* |
35 |
|
36 |
|
37 |
//Spider |
38 |
|
39 |
|
40 |
-- |
41 |
begin .signature |
42 |
Tortured users / Laughing in pain |
43 |
See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information. |
44 |
end |