* Micha?? Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> schrieb: > > What do you think about this idea ? > > You mean what do we think about portage-2.2 and preserved-libs?
Well, I'm still using portage-2.1, so I wans't aware of whats going on there. For now it seems the preservation is still done explicitly (preserve_old_lib calls in certain ebuilds ?). My proposal is to record the necessary information (eg. which so some executable/so is linked against) automatically - does portage-2.2 do that ? BTW: several blog/maillist postings talked about the problem that even on recompile, older library versions could be linked in even on recompile. Somebody suggested to move away preserved libs to another directly (which is then added to ld.so.conf). What do you think about that ? Another approach could be building everything in an separate, minimal sysroot or chroot. (I admit, I have no idea how complex it would be to implement that in portage - my Briegel buildsystem does always does this) cu -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Enrico Weigelt, metux IT service -- http://www.metux.de/ phone: +49 36207 519931 email: weig...@metux.de mobile: +49 151 27565287 icq: 210169427 skype: nekrad666 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Embedded-Linux / Portierung / Opensource-QM / Verteilte Systeme ----------------------------------------------------------------------
