On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 6:23 PM, Dan McGee <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 10:16 AM, Allan McRae <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 08/04/10 00:54, Florian Pritz wrote: >>> >>> On 07.04.2010 16:10, Allan McRae wrote: >>>> >>>> This would really not help here. Pacman does not directly link openssl, >>>> but does through libarchive and libfetch. Adding versioned libarchive >>>> and libfetch to pacman's deps and using sodeps on openssl in those >>>> packages would prevent pacman's SyncFirst from working. >>>> >>> >>> Don't add depends=(libfetch.sp libarchive.so) to the pacman PKGBUILD and >>> it won't be a problem. (Also see #2 below) >> >> Adding those or not is the same as adding versioned deps or not. Both cause >> bad issues. >> >>>> no versioned deps in pacman for lib{archive,fetch} = bad as between the >>>> openssl and lib{archive,fetch} updates vercmp is broken and so is >>>> install files. >>> >>> sodeps would ensure that pacman updates libfetch and libarchive directly >>> after openssl. >> >> Not directly after, but in the same transaction. That is the same as the >> current issue we have. Using sodeps is no improvement over versioned deps >> here. > > Allan and I talked a bit on IRC and we both came to some idea that a > vercmp without any deps would probably be a good solution. We can hack > this up for now, file attached to do so. > > If this goes into the pacman package dir in SVN and we just add a "gcc > -O2 -o vercmp vercmp.c" in there and put it in the right place, we can > avoid a lot of hassle with everything here. >
That sounds fine, but what is the long term solution exactly ?
