| 1 |
On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 02:27:48 +0100 |
| 2 |
Spider <spider@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> However, this is bad and broken behaviour as we just get one headache |
| 6 |
> for another ( what package supplies -that- .so file then? which of |
| 7 |
> theese 6000 packages is it I haven't installed? and with what USE flag |
| 8 |
> combination? ) |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Sure, if you assume that all libs must be checked because they all may |
| 12 |
be broken despite all deps (at pkg level) are satisfied, this is a |
| 13 |
difficult problem. But it is really a pessimistic assumption, no? |
| 14 |
Cases such as openssl are not that numerous. Openssl is the only one I |
| 15 |
can think of, and even if there are other, they are easy to detect a |
| 16 |
systematic way. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
If you agree on this, then all you need is something is to check that |
| 19 |
this libs are installed in the right version. The two solutions i can |
| 20 |
think of: |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
- you can do this with a strict dependency as suggested James (I |
| 23 |
personnaly think it makes much sense and is a clean solution, now I |
| 24 |
don't know how grp packages are built and if it is a problem for you to |
| 25 |
have different ebuilds for them.) |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
- you can check the installed libs are okay it in pkg_preinst. Since |
| 28 |
you specify explicitly what is the problematic libraries, you also know |
| 29 |
from what pkg hey come and can report it to the user in case of failure. |
| 30 |
Attached is a proof of concept eclass that implement a "checklib" |
| 31 |
function you can use this way: |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
pkg_preinst() { |
| 34 |
checklib libssl.so dev-libs/openssl || die |
| 35 |
checklib libcrypto.so dev-libs/openssl || die |
| 36 |
} |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
The behavior of checklib is to run ldd on all binaries of the package, |
| 39 |
find linked libs that match the lib name pattern (for instance |
| 40 |
"libssl.so"), and check they exist on system or will be installed. If |
| 41 |
they are not, the user is asked to (re-)emerge the package named as 2nd |
| 42 |
argument. |
| 43 |
When the package is built from source, the check should never fail |
| 44 |
(or there is a big problem in the build process). When installed from a |
| 45 |
binary package, it will fail if the package is not compatible with your |
| 46 |
system, and that's it. |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
What do you think of this second approach (not talking about the code |
| 49 |
itself sure)? |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
-- |
| 52 |
TGL. |
Archives