El sáb, 30-06-2012 a las 13:46 -0400, Ian Stakenvicius escribió: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA256 > > On 30/06/12 01:30 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote: > > El sáb, 30-06-2012 a las 13:17 -0400, Ian Stakenvicius escribió: > >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 > >> > >> On 30/06/12 11:16 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > >>> On Saturday 30 June 2012 07:22:39 Zac Medico wrote: > >>>> On 06/30/2012 04:07 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote: > >>>>> I would like to discuss a bit more issues like: > >>>>> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=423087 > >>>>> > >>>>> Even if there are "a lot" of packages that can cause this > >>>>> breakage when downgraded, I think it should be prevented > >>>>> and package managers shouldn't try to downgrade this kind > >>>>> of packages as they will later cause a total breakage. > >>>>> People is not supposed to know that downgrading some > >>>>> package system will, for example, have an unusable gcc. > >>>> > >>>> It seems like a die in pkg_pretend would serve pretty well. > >>> > >>> doing it on a per-ebuild basis doesn't make much sense. a > >>> simple version compare (like we do in glibc as an exception to > >>> this rule because of its much wider implication) is incorrect: > >>> the new version might not introduce any new symbols compared to > >>> the old one, and even if it has, other packages might not have > >>> been linked against the new symbols. -mike > >> > >> Instead of preventing downgrade wouldn't it make more sense to > >> figure out a way to force a rebuild on @system or @toolchain or > >> whatever bits are broken as soon as the downgrade occurs, rather > >> than just making it a one-way ticket? If we could sort this out > >> (and sub-slots may help with this, but probably we'll need some > >> extra work too) then we could probably support switching from > >> ~arch to arch at a whim.. Not necessarily a bad goal. > >> > > > > The problem is that, in this kind of breakage, gcc breaks as soon > > as zlib is downgraded and, then, user cannot compile anything, > > needing to manually find missing zlib lib from any other > > distributions binaries, put it in the system and re-emerge zlib :| > > > > ..but preserved-libs would keep that from happening wouldn't it? ie, > the lib itself would stick around until gcc isn't using it anymore... > > so it'd just be a matter of an interim issue until preserved-libs is > in stable portage ... and i'm guessing something that would suffice > here is a blockage on downgrades of anything belonging to the contents > of /var/db/edb/{sys-devel/gcc,sys-libs/glibc}-[0-9]*/NEEDED ? > > (apologies for the bad hack:) > > cat /var/db/pkg/{sys-devel/gcc,sys-libs/glibc}-[0-9]*/NEEDED \ > |sed -e 's#^/[^ ]* ##' |sed -e "s/,/\n/g" |sort -u \ > |xargs equery b |awk '{print $1}' |sort -u \ > |sed 's/^/</' > > ^^^ that's your build-preserving package.mask , yes? > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) > > iF4EAREIAAYFAk/vO4gACgkQ2ugaI38ACPBUvwEApQAljVOj492q2/bhttriqWgz > iu8FZdsh1EHMeYaHxi0A/iZNY28W9NT5ynO6B42CAxpYpWym2SIc4JflTu/7IK1h > =3pcd > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > >
Looks like preserve-libs should be extended to handle this cases: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=423087#c5
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
