Gentoo Archives: gentoo-portage-dev

From: Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o>
To: gentoo-portage-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] missing-rebuild package set
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 21:54:22
Message-Id: 499C838C.7020906@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] missing-rebuild package set by Alec Warner
1 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
2 Hash: SHA1
3
4 Alec Warner wrote:
5 >> As it is time for gSoC 2009; I want to inquire at the status of this
6 >> code integration.
7 >> Looking at HEAD it seems there are some changes left to merge. Is
8 >> this on the roadmap?
9
10 The hardcoded libraries/paths (used to filter "false positives")
11 still need to be split out into config files before I can merge it.
12 I'll get to that eventually but I've got lots of other more pressing
13 things to work on a them moment.
14
15 For preserve-libs, the main problems that are left are:
16
17 1) There is no protection against building packages which depend on
18 packages for which libs are still preserved [1].
19
20 2) Library preservation currently does not work for binutils
21 upgrades since the binutils libraries are added to the library path
22 via symlinks which are created by binutils-config (unlike most
23 packages the provide libraries, the paths of libraries to which the
24 symlinks point are not included directly in ld.so.conf).
25
26 [1]
27 http://blog.flameeyes.eu/2008/06/30/a-few-risks-i-see-related-to-the-new-portage-2-2-preserve-libs-behaviour
28
29 - --
30 Thanks,
31 Zac
32 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
33 Version: GnuPG v2.0.10 (GNU/Linux)
34
35 iEYEARECAAYFAkmcg4sACgkQ/ejvha5XGaNaSQCg00Bcs0xCzj7/iE2cf5rxMuwT
36 SqwAoNkSNV+mF6JIGVyttoDKKZ6fOtVs
37 =NK/Z
38 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----