| 1 |
On Thu, Feb 05, 2004 at 04:13:14AM +0100, Spider wrote: |
| 2 |
> Well, No. Its a cludge around a broken situation. That we know of |
| 3 |
> openssl for this example doesnt mean much really. This situation could |
| 4 |
> happen with a lot of packages. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
Well, that's fine - the solution is applicable to more packages than |
| 7 |
just openssl. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
> I think one solution would be to force |
| 10 |
> an update to the latest version of dependencies. It would go around any |
| 11 |
> binary problems like this, but it still wouldn't be pretty. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Only if the binary was built against the latest version of dependencies! |
| 14 |
If it was built against (in this case) openssl-0.9.6, then you'd be |
| 15 |
creating the problem you're trying to solve. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> cludging DEPEND manually or with tools break the whole idea of making |
| 18 |
> packages from the same stuff we make source builds with. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
It's not really a kludge. The RDEPEND line specifies what versions of |
| 21 |
what packages the about-to-be-installed package needs - it's just that |
| 22 |
binary packages are stricter in their version needs that source |
| 23 |
packages. Since we're making sure that the compiled ebuilds are |
| 24 |
tightly coupled to the compiled source, there's no way for them to cause |
| 25 |
damage. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him. - Jonathan Swift |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives