1 |
On Thursday 23 March 2006 21:38, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri wrote: |
2 |
> Ok... this discussion is missing my initial point that is how to |
3 |
> provide binary dependency and avoid many crashes we have now with |
4 |
> almost no effort. |
5 |
> |
6 |
> My initial proposal was to, after compile and before install is done, |
7 |
> we should parse linker information and check for each library it |
8 |
> depends, which package-version provides it and then mark the just |
9 |
> compiled package runtime-dependent on them. If the dependency was not |
10 |
> installed by portage, then issue a warning/error and take some action |
11 |
> (ask user, abort or ignore) |
12 |
|
13 |
Ok, my counterproposal: |
14 |
|
15 |
Don't do it automatically. Use a heuristic by default (within the same |
16 |
BINSLOT, higher or equal version). Allow ebuilds to override this. |
17 |
|
18 |
Then we can do automatic verification as you propose. |
19 |
|
20 |
My way allows binary dependencies to work more broadly. It also makes |
21 |
things explicit. Changing detection to verification should catch the same |
22 |
bugs. Not detecting does however mean that we can be better than a |
23 |
fallible autodetection system. |
24 |
|
25 |
And trust me, autodetection WILL fail for some packages. |
26 |
|
27 |
> Cons: |
28 |
> - it's not the final solution to the problem, as said, interfaces |
29 |
> would be better... but interfaces would demand much more effort and |
30 |
> not being automatically generated, would be async and probably |
31 |
> incorrect at some point |
32 |
|
33 |
Interfaces, while nice, would overcomplicate things. They are also not |
34 |
needed as we have depend atoms. |
35 |
|
36 |
Paul |
37 |
|
38 |
-- |
39 |
Paul de Vrieze |
40 |
Gentoo Developer |
41 |
Mail: pauldv@g.o |
42 |
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net |