On 12/31/2010 12:42 PM, Enrico Weigelt 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.
As other's have mentioned, this is already implemented in portage-2.2 with FEATURES=preserve-libs and @preserved-rebuild. However, before this feature is unmasked, I think that it's critical to implement bug 192319 [1] (abi-slot-deps) in order to ensure that reverse dependencies of preserved libraries are rebuilt at the earliest possible opportunity since this will minimize the possibility of symbol collisions [2]. [1] http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=192319 [2] http://blog.flameeyes.eu/2008/06/30/a-few-risks-i-see-related-to-the-new-portage-2-2-preserve-libs-behaviour -- Thanks, Zac
