On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 11:01:40 -0400 Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | On Thursday 21 September 2006 10:54, Donnie Berkholz wrote: | > Yes, I agree with you. For example, take expat. The maintainers have | > refused to allow both versions to exist simultaneously on a system | > because it apparently causes more breakage than just breaking every | > app on your system by removing .so.0. | | that is the exact case portage should be handling for you | | it would go "oh hey, check out libexpat.so.0 ... some things seem to | want it ... HEY USER, you need to rebuild: xxxxxxxx" ... once all the | packages still consuming libexpat.so.0 are rebuilt, portage could | silently trim it from the system | | complicated ? not really, scanelf can produce all this information | in an easily digestable format
How would it know what other files are required? For example, if libexpat.so.0 were to rely upon /usr/share/expat-0/config , how would the package manager know not to clobber that file? Or are you suggesting leaving (or reparenting, if you prefer) all a package's files, not just the .so files? Or a related question: what proportion of breakages will be fixed merely by keeping .so files and nothing else around? Will implementing this prevent enough breakages to make it worthwhile? -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail : ciaranm at ciaranm.org Web : http://ciaranm.org/ as-needed is broken : http://ciaranm.org/show_post.pl?post_id=13
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
