Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Should preserve-libs be enabled by default?

2008-05-29 Thread Rémi Cardona

Marius Mauch a écrit :

So, do you think it should be enabled by default?


Does portage have a way to report which libraries it is keeping around 
because of preserve-libs ? If there's an easy way to figure that out, 
then enabling it by default is a very sane and sound idea.


Cheers,

Rémi
--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Should preserve-libs be enabled by default?

2008-05-29 Thread Fabian Groffen
On 29-05-2008 08:54:48 +0200, Rémi Cardona wrote:
 Marius Mauch a écrit :
 So, do you think it should be enabled by default?

 Does portage have a way to report which libraries it is keeping around  
 because of preserve-libs ? If there's an easy way to figure that out,  
 then enabling it by default is a very sane and sound idea.

It does so after every merge IIRC, and you can also find them in a file
somewhere.


-- 
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a different level
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Should preserve-libs be enabled by default?

2008-05-29 Thread Mike Auty

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Marius Mauch wrote:
| The purpose of this is to keep the system operational after library
| upgrades until all affected packages could be rebuilt and to simplify
| the process, not to avoid the rebuilds.

I couldn't find it mentioned in your email, but if portage is
effectively doing reference counts, what happens when its reference
count gets to 0?  Once no ebuilds rely on the old library is it removed
automatically, or do the you need to rebuild these message just go away?

Is there a way to have portage delete the libraries once it's sure
they're no longer necessary?  If so, is that done by rebuilding the
owning package itself, or by editing the owning pacakge's contents and
removing the old library?

Does @preserved-rebuild contain just the affected packages, or the
package containing the old library as well?  (i.e. Does an emerge
@preserved-rebuild ensure that the old library will no longer exist on
your system, or not?)

Basically, if I can safely replace revdep-rebuild with emerge
@preserved-rebuild then I'd be happy to keep it enabled.  If it's going
to leave cruft on the system (or then require manual rebuilds of
packages containing preserved libraries to clear out the cruft) then I'd
personally be inclined to turn it off and stick with revdep-rebuild...

Mike  5:)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkg+aSAACgkQu7rWomwgFXoR2ACeJnf+J/pd/GEEh5Ds/Q80sjOR
vIkAoKEyLD2lTGfehoSoYLP6pH/R++2J
=0sv1
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Should preserve-libs be enabled by default?

2008-05-29 Thread Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
2008-05-29 08:54:48 Rémi Cardona napisał(a):
 Does portage have a way to report which libraries it is keeping around 
 because of preserve-libs ?

portageq list_preserved_libs /

-- 
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.


Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Should preserve-libs be enabled by default?

2008-05-29 Thread Marius Mauch
On Thu, 29 May 2008 09:28:16 +0100
Mike Auty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
 Hash: SHA1
 
 Marius Mauch wrote:
 | The purpose of this is to keep the system operational after library
 | upgrades until all affected packages could be rebuilt and to
 | simplify the process, not to avoid the rebuilds.
 
 I couldn't find it mentioned in your email, but if portage is
 effectively doing reference counts, what happens when its reference
 count gets to 0?  Once no ebuilds rely on the old library is it
 removed automatically, or do the you need to rebuild these message
 just go away?

They are removed automatically.

Marius
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Should preserve-libs be enabled by default?

2008-05-28 Thread Donnie Berkholz
On 01:13 Thu 29 May , Marius Mauch wrote:
 One concern raised by some people is that it might cause old libraries
 with security issues to stay on the system for eternity even though
 the package was upgraded, and eventually be preferred by new builds.
 I can't rule this out completely but thinks it's very unlikely, as
 preserved libraries are specially tracked and the user is notified
 about their existance after every emerge operation (similar to glep42
 news).

Part of this should be addressable by keeping track of the version that 
installed them and checking it against the distributed GLSAs...

Thanks,
Donnie
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list