Re: [gentoo-dev] making revdep-rebuild (partially) obsolete
* Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org schrieb: although portage has long been generating the NEEDED files in vdb. even stable portage generates these files. Ah, okay, I wasn't aware of that. What's the difference between NEEEDED and NEEDED.2 ? Multiarch ? 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 --
Re: [gentoo-dev] making revdep-rebuild (partially) obsolete
* 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 --
Re: [gentoo-dev] making revdep-rebuild (partially) obsolete
On Saturday, January 01, 2011 23:09:11 Enrico Weigelt wrote: BTW: several blog/maillist postings talked about the problem that even on recompile, older library versions could be linked in even on recompile. you'll need to provide an actual example. i have yet to see one. -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] making revdep-rebuild (partially) obsolete
On 01/01/2011 08:09 PM, Enrico Weigelt wrote: 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 ? Yes, portage-2.2 uses /var/db/pkg/*/*/NEEDED.ELF.3 for that. -- Thanks, Zac
Re: [gentoo-dev] making revdep-rebuild (partially) obsolete
On Sunday, January 02, 2011 00:17:03 Zac Medico wrote: On 01/01/2011 08:09 PM, Enrico Weigelt wrote: 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 ? Yes, portage-2.2 uses /var/db/pkg/*/*/NEEDED.ELF.3 for that. although portage has long been generating the NEEDED files in vdb. even stable portage generates these files. -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] making revdep-rebuild (partially) obsolete
On 12/31/2010 03:42 PM, Enrico Weigelt wrote: What do you think about this idea ? I think you should check out the preserve-libs feature in portage-2.2.
Re: [gentoo-dev] making revdep-rebuild (partially) obsolete
On Fri, 31 Dec 2010 21:42:32 +0100 Enrico Weigelt weig...@metux.de wrote: The main problem IMHO is that portage doesn't record which libraries some package links in, so it doesn't know which ones have to be protected from unmerge (unless explicitly stated somewhere). So I'd propose to add record that information. On next merge, this information can be used for an automatic library-protect. This would also record which libraries have been protected from removal and for whom. Subsequent merges will update this that, and once all importers have been unmerged, depclean can clean up the leftover dirt. What do you think about this idea ? You mean what do we think about portage-2.2 and preserved-libs? -- Best regards, Michał Górny signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] making revdep-rebuild (partially) obsolete
... Subsequent merges will update this that, ... Subsequent merges may happen after a long while. Old, possibly vulunerable library will still be used, and most likely unseen by admin.
