X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.8claws (GTK+ 1.2.10; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 11:20:42 +0100 Spider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So my question was for the generic case of things like this, Can the > binaries be made more reliable? > > Perhaps this sort of thing be worked around in portage-code? ( wrap a > consistency check of linking before installing? demand that a system > is"updated" ? ) > > Or should binaries have more metadata in them, perhaps a specific > requirement for libraries? (sheesh, then its down to RPM again. that's > bad. ) Why more metadata? Can't we just run a ldd check on the binaries, check that the relevant libraries are present, if not do a lookup in a (to-be-created) list of library<->package mappings and add the relevant packages as PDEPEND? (or yell at the user to provide that library ;) Marius -- Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
