> > On 02/02/2010 09:13 PM, Nagy Gabor wrote: > > > This is not the competent ML to decide if ArchLinux's repos should use > > > these flags, personally I have some concerns about db.tar.gz size. (That > > > needs testing, which requires patched makepkg, too.) > > > > I've repacked core and the results are quite good: > > > > core.db.tar.gz from 35KB to 40KB > > unpacked db from 2.1MB to 2.2MB > > > > Here is a little explanation for this nice result: > > Florian's patch puts a library into sodepends iff the .so file is owned > by one of its _direct_ dependencies (optdepends are omitted). That is > why the "sodepends" array is shorter than expected (by me). > > You may say this method is not as safe as it should be, but imho it > is safe enough (if the user doesn't use the -d switch, of course): > For example, yesterday I broke all my gtk2 packages due to my custom > cairo build (I should have rebuild it with recent libpng). With > soprovides/sodepends enabled, pacman would catch the broken > cairo-cleartype->libpng dependency in the firefox->gtk2->cairo->libpng > dependency chain. So in sum, sodepends/soprovides trick is just ensures > that all "normal" dependencies are not broken in .so level neither. > > Moreover, due to this feature, distros can introduce > sodepends/soprovides step-by-step (without rebuilding all packages in > the repo), or they can limit this feature to some "critical" packages. >
Basically, +1 for implementing this to makepkg and use this in ArchLinux's repos. (Although this ML is not competent ;-) I can see only one edge case that should be addressed (that's why I'm writing this e-mail): Dependencies can be satisfied via provision. What to do then? (That is not handled at all atm.) Bye