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----- |