1 |
On 09-11-2012 19:42:06 -0600, William Hubbs wrote: |
2 |
> > They tested it? Are you referring to the platforms from bug #417451? |
3 |
> > (excluding the Prefix platforms, because in the Prefix tree |
4 |
> > gen_usr_ldscript just works, because it breaks existing installs to |
5 |
> > disable it) |
6 |
> |
7 |
> Look at the first case statement in gen_usr_ldscript and tell me if you |
8 |
> disagree with what I'm saying. The function always executes on darwin. |
9 |
> On linux and any bsds, it executes for non-prefix setups. On any other |
10 |
> platform, prefix or not, it does nothing. |
11 |
> |
12 |
> So, if I'm reading the code correctly, on prefix, more than likely it |
13 |
> isn't doing anything. |
14 |
|
15 |
Oh my, I made an error in the logic! Thanks for pointing out! |
16 |
|
17 |
> > I thought so too, until I got dangling symlinks for older zlib for some |
18 |
> > reason (preserve-libs? ebuild?) which wasn't really a funny experience. |
19 |
> |
20 |
> What symlinks did you have? |
21 |
|
22 |
lib/libz.so.1 -> libz.so.1.2.5 |
23 |
(I upgraded 1.2.5 to 1.2.7) |
24 |
|
25 |
> If we do this with a variable, I suggest using it temporarily, but |
26 |
> ultimately dropping it and having everyone switch over after things are tested. |
27 |
|
28 |
We know that FreeBSD will never (for how it looks now) follow, so we |
29 |
need to keep the code anyway. Since it breaks e.g. Darwin, I'd like not |
30 |
to disappoint my users by saying: "sorry, you'll have to reinstall". |
31 |
Last but not least, I see no reason (given we have to keep the code |
32 |
anyway) to make sysadmins, that feel unsure about this on their running |
33 |
production systems, go into this route. You don't know what custom code |
34 |
they have installed/running. They'll be on their own (no |
35 |
udev/GNOME/whatever support), but most likely they won't care about that |
36 |
at all. |
37 |
|
38 |
|
39 |
-- |
40 |
Fabian Groffen |
41 |
Gentoo on a different level |