On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 19:42:14 -0500 Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | Ciaran McCreesh wrote: | > On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 19:00:07 -0500 Ned Ludd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | > wrote: | > | > Why introduce a feature which is crippled? It would be almost as | > | > easy to allow ebuilds to mess with their 'real' runtime | > | > dependency value as appropriate rather than forcing an incorrect | > | > auto-generated list onto everyone. | | Talking on solar about this confirmed my suspicions, the ELF data | can't be wrong, otherwise things won't link properly. Thus if we were | just to use ELF NEEDED entries, how could the list of reverse runtime | deps be "incorrect" as you imply above?
It can be incomplete. Of course, finding the ELF NEEDED entries is not a sufficient solution to the initial problem, nor is it a sufficient solution to the real problem here. | So in regards to reverse dependency tracking, do you have a | solution/advice or just useless criticism? Please attempt to be | constructive here. Sure. My advice is to scrap the current idea and redo it to take into account things which are not just ELF-related. -- Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (The one that looks before leaping) Mail : ciaranm at gentoo.org Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
