[gentoo-user] Re: Binary chrome - is it safe in terms of dependencies?
On 2013-01-31, Nilesh Govindrajan wrote: On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 7:05 AM, Mike Gilbert flop...@gentoo.org wrote: On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Yohan Pereira yohan.pere...@gmail.com wrote: On 30/01/13 at 11:09pm, Nilesh Govindrajan wrote: Since Gentoo updates libraries very quickly, I'm wondering if it is safe to use the binary version? Has anyone faced library breakages on this? Chromium is easily recompiled with new libraries and you don't have a broken browser, which won't really be the case with the binary version. I've used the binary version (google-chrome) for a while and never had any breakages. I guess if there's a library update that could potentially break google-chrome the gentoo devs would add a blocker so you wont be able to install the 2 at the same time. Or I can just bundle a copy of the necessary libraries, similar to what I have done for libudev.so.0. Sounds good. I guess I'll switch to binary chrome then. Also, I suppose that, if there were library incompatibilities, the package would never go stable, or would at least, like Yohan said, lead to a block/version dependency. -- Nuno Silva (aka njsg) http://njsg.sdf-eu.org/
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Binary chrome - is it safe in terms of dependencies?
Well, many times you can't really anticipate everything. I had my libreoffice-bin pdf import broken for two months because some shared library had got upgraded against which it wasn't linked. (excuse for top post, typing from mobile) -- Nilesh Govindrajan http://nileshgr.com On Jan 31, 2013 5:38 PM, Nuno Silva nunojsi...@ist.utl.pt wrote: On 2013-01-31, Nilesh Govindrajan wrote: On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 7:05 AM, Mike Gilbert flop...@gentoo.org wrote: On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Yohan Pereira yohan.pere...@gmail.com wrote: On 30/01/13 at 11:09pm, Nilesh Govindrajan wrote: Since Gentoo updates libraries very quickly, I'm wondering if it is safe to use the binary version? Has anyone faced library breakages on this? Chromium is easily recompiled with new libraries and you don't have a broken browser, which won't really be the case with the binary version. I've used the binary version (google-chrome) for a while and never had any breakages. I guess if there's a library update that could potentially break google-chrome the gentoo devs would add a blocker so you wont be able to install the 2 at the same time. Or I can just bundle a copy of the necessary libraries, similar to what I have done for libudev.so.0. Sounds good. I guess I'll switch to binary chrome then. Also, I suppose that, if there were library incompatibilities, the package would never go stable, or would at least, like Yohan said, lead to a block/version dependency. -- Nuno Silva (aka njsg) http://njsg.sdf-eu.org/
[gentoo-user] Re: Binary chrome - is it safe in terms of dependencies?
On 2013-01-31, Nilesh Govindrajan wrote: On Jan 31, 2013 5:38 PM, Nuno Silva nunojsi...@ist.utl.pt wrote: Also, I suppose that, if there were library incompatibilities, the package would never go stable, or would at least, like Yohan said, lead to a block/version dependency. Well, many times you can't really anticipate everything. I had my libreoffice-bin pdf import broken for two months because some shared library had got upgraded against which it wasn't linked. I guess that sometimes this kind of issues may be harder to spot, or require harder fixes (see for example the current state of LISP where some packages require ASDF 2 but the stable one is ASDF 1, AFAIK the stabilization of ASDF 2 is pending because some eclasses have to be changed), but even then I'd suppose this is what the unstable arches are for. -- Nuno Silva (aka njsg) http://njsg.sdf-eu.org/
