[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       gentoo-dev
Subject:    Re: [gentoo-dev] making revdep-rebuild (partially) obsolete
From:       Zac Medico <zmedico () gentoo ! org>
Date:       2010-12-31 21:41:26
Message-ID: 4D1E4E06.9060100 () gentoo ! org
[Download RAW message or body]

On 12/31/2010 12:42 PM, Enrico Weigelt wrote:
> The main problem IMHO is that portage doesn't record which libraries
> some package links in, so it doesn't know which ones have to be
> protected from unmerge (unless explicitly stated somewhere).
> So I'd propose to add record that information. On next merge,
> this information can be used for an automatic library-protect.
> This would also record which libraries have been protected from
> removal and for whom. Subsequent merges will update this that,
> and once all importers have been unmerged, depclean can clean
> up the leftover dirt.

As other's have mentioned, this is already implemented in portage-2.2
with FEATURES=preserve-libs and @preserved-rebuild.

However, before this feature is unmasked, I think that it's critical to
implement bug 192319 [1] (abi-slot-deps) in order to ensure that reverse
dependencies of preserved libraries are rebuilt at the earliest possible
opportunity since this will minimize the possibility of symbol
collisions [2].

[1] http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=192319
[2]
http://blog.flameeyes.eu/2008/06/30/a-few-risks-i-see-related-to-the-new-portage-2-2-preserve-libs-behaviour
                
-- 
Thanks,
Zac


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]