On Thu, 2008-03-13 at 14:48 -0400, Caleb Tennis wrote: > > As much as I hate to say it, your example was rather bunk, because > > openssl changed SONAME during that time. Keeping the package > > You're right here. After review, the problem was the difference between > 0.9.8e and > 0.9.8g, the latter of which provided some form of newer symbol that wasn't in > e. > But the concept is the same.
Correct. That would not have been caught and would be an issue, still. > > Uhh... >= in RDEPEND does that, already... Also, this wouldn't have > > resolved your openssl issue, at all. Your machine scenario above would > > have still failed, since the minimum version was 0.9.7 on your build > > host. > > I'm not talking about meeting the minimum required by the ebuild, I'm talking > about > the minimum that were installed at the time of the emerge. > > > Well, I sincerely hope that you do not file such a bug, as it would > > royally screw over the one team in Gentoo that *does* consistently use > > our binary package support. > > I don't plan on filing the bug, but if it was an optional emerge option to > use the > actual version deps vs. the DEPEND of the ebuild, it wouldn't affect you > would it? If it were optional, it wouldn't affect us. I'd have no issue with some kind of optional support for this sort of thing. > > I would definitely like to see the support improved, but not at the > > expense of doing very stupid things like locking to specific > > versions/revisions of packages. No offense, but that screams of RPM > > hell. > > I'm not trying to lock to any specific version. I'm trying to reproduce on > machine > 2 the same state of packages that package A was compiled against on machine > 1. And > even make it optional to do so, via an emerge flag. This is likely usually done by controlling the binrepo. At least, that's how I do it. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead Games Developer
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
