Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: (Diego 'Flameeyes' =?utf-8?Q?Petten=C3=B2?=)
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Should preserve-libs be enabled by default?
Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 11:38:10
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Should preserve-libs be enabled by default? by Marius Mauch
1 Marius Mauch <genone@g.o> writes:
3 > That's what `emerge @preserved-rebuild` does, or do you mean something
4 > different?
6 I meant something different, see the rst.
7 > Well, with preserve-libs the situation is this (using your example):
8 > - user upgrades expat, portage keeps around
9 > (some packages might now be linked against both versions if the session
10 > included other packages as well)
11 > - emerge tells the user to rebuild all affected packages (affected =
12 > contains in NEEDED, so includes both libfoo and bar) by
13 > using `emerge @preserved-rebuild` (in the future this could also be done
14 > automatically, but that won't be before 2.2 final)
15 > - when all affected packages have been rebuilt (so their NEEDED entries
16 > don't contain anymore) is automatically
17 > removed
19 Okay this works if the user follows the procedure and tries not to bend
20 the rules...
22 > So, if I understand you correctly (probably not), you want portage to
23 > prevent the user from building any packages depending on any affected
24 > package before the last step is completed?
26 Yes this is exactly what I meant. Whenever a dependency is in the
27 @preserved-rebuild set, it should not be linked against. It could still
28 be used, but as now we don't have an easy way to distinguish between the
29 two, I'd say it's better to check both DEPEND and RDEPEND and disallow
30 its usage as a dependency until it's removed from the set.
32 > Whoever that is is welcome to voice his opinion here, that's the point
33 > of this thread after all.
35 (It was mostly a disclaimer so that users don't feel like they get
36 ignored without just cause if they want behaviour X and instead we go
37 with behaviour Y... I'm sure a lot of people wouldn't like the option I
38 proposed above, but trust me there's a reason why I voiced that concern
39 :) ).
41 --
42 Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò