| 1 |
On Friday 22 October 2004 17:07, Paul de Vrieze wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thursday 21 October 2004 21:19, Luke-Jr wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Thursday 21 October 2004 7:00 pm, Nathaniel McCallum wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > These problems (as rac mentions) can somewhat be overcome by freezing |
| 5 |
> > > the toolchain or (as rac doesn't really mention) freezing the whole |
| 6 |
> > > tree. I know freezing the tree has been mentioned as an "enterprise" |
| 7 |
> > > type option (having a supported tree with backported security fixes), |
| 8 |
> > > though it would help with desktop binary compatibility as well. |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > Or simply by updating the RDEPEND in the binary pkg to lock it to |
| 11 |
> > specific versions of packages. The problem then would be figuring out |
| 12 |
> > which packages are binary compatible and *not* locking those. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> Unfortunately the requirements for RDEPEND in a binary package are more in |
| 15 |
> the like of depend on library L with useflags A, B and C, and linked |
| 16 |
> against the libraries with sonames X, Y and Z. And even for those sonames |
| 17 |
> you would want a minimal version. In short dll hell revisited. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Portage really needs to know this anyway to be able to sort out possible |
| 20 |
breakage when things are upgraded. Sure, everything can be scanned but that |
| 21 |
is very time-consuming and thus a PITA for the end-user. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Remember that the packages, once installed, are always binary and any change |
| 24 |
to versions are just as likely to cause breakage within the installed system |
| 25 |
regardless of how the new packages are installed. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Regards, |
| 28 |
Jason Stubbs |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
gentoo-portage-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives