On Thursday 05 February 2004 21:13, Olivier Cr�te wrote: > On Thu, 2004-02-05 at 20:58, Paul de Vrieze wrote: > > Binary packages are dirty ;-) Anyone some idea what debian does to this > > respect? > > They are indeed dirty... Debian has a script that does an LDD on every > executable and associates the .so deps with specific packages versions > and add those as dependencies.. But they dont have use flags, etc...
This is what rpm does too. For useflags we need useflag deps. > > There is no way around storing the exact dependencies of .so versions in > the packages I think... The suggestion that I saw of storing from which > package/version they were last seen seems the best thing to do.. So we > can at least give the users a hint on what to do... I think that would be a first start. > Its better to just have portage stop with "library version of XX does > not match YY, you can not install this binary package, recompile > yourself". Even if it does reject stuff that would normally work, that's > probably better than accepting stuff that breaks.. Maybe allow forcing, but indeed. I still like LIBVER though as it will give some hint on how likely something is to be working. Further as some other "suggestion" it would be nice if you could just do emerge --rebuild foobar-1.2.3.tbz2 and have portage extract the ebuild and rebuild it. Paul -- Paul de Vrieze Gentoo Developer Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net
pgp00000.pgp
Description: signature
