| 1 |
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 19:42:14 -0500 Alec Warner <warnera6@×××××××.edu> |
| 2 |
wrote: |
| 3 |
| Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 4 |
| > On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 19:00:07 -0500 Ned Ludd <solar@g.o> |
| 5 |
| > wrote: |
| 6 |
| > | > Why introduce a feature which is crippled? It would be almost as |
| 7 |
| > | > easy to allow ebuilds to mess with their 'real' runtime |
| 8 |
| > | > dependency value as appropriate rather than forcing an incorrect |
| 9 |
| > | > auto-generated list onto everyone. |
| 10 |
| |
| 11 |
| Talking on solar about this confirmed my suspicions, the ELF data |
| 12 |
| can't be wrong, otherwise things won't link properly. Thus if we were |
| 13 |
| just to use ELF NEEDED entries, how could the list of reverse runtime |
| 14 |
| deps be "incorrect" as you imply above? |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
It can be incomplete. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Of course, finding the ELF NEEDED entries is not a sufficient solution |
| 19 |
to the initial problem, nor is it a sufficient solution to the real |
| 20 |
problem here. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
| So in regards to reverse dependency tracking, do you have a |
| 23 |
| solution/advice or just useless criticism? Please attempt to be |
| 24 |
| constructive here. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Sure. My advice is to scrap the current idea and redo it to take into |
| 27 |
account things which are not just ELF-related. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (The one that looks before leaping) |
| 31 |
Mail : ciaranm at gentoo.org |
| 32 |
Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm |
Archives