On Thursday 15 of July 2010 12:14:29 Duncan wrote: > Gilles Dartiguelongue posted on Thu, 15 Jul 2010 11:09:39 +0200 as > > excerpted: > > Le jeudi 15 juillet 2010 à 09:49 +0100, Mike Auty a écrit : [...] > > > >> I can live with this for in places where it causes massive breakage > >> (openssl/libpng/libjpg), because it's genuinely useful, but I think it > >> should be restricted to such important packages, or at least disabled > >> by FEATURES="-preserve-libs". > >> > >> Ideally, these calls should either adhere to FEATURES="-preserve-libs", > >> or there should be a tool that can identify which files portage has > >> preserved, and allow easy rebuilding of dependent packages, and > >> removal. > >> > >> At the moment, I'm having to manually grep ebuilds, ls the libraries > >> > >> and run revdep-rebuild over them one at a time... > > > > These sound like very good ideas to me. > > ++ > > If I have FEATURE=-preserve-libs, that's what I want. Exceptions should > be limited to what will break the toolchain (including revdep-rebuild > here, since that's what's normally used to get out of the situation) > itself. > > If there was a way to handle it so a general revdep-rebuild run would > still detect the preserved library as missing and do the necessary > rebuilds, it'd be one thing, but if the libraries are there, it figures > things are OK unless you've fed it that specific library, thereby making a > general revdep-rebuld run useless at the very task it was designed to fix. > > Talking about which... What about creating an eutils (or whatever) > function to handle the critical preservations, having it build a > centralized list of them somewhere, and having a revdep-rebuild mode that > will treat that list as if it had been fed in with --library on the > command line? Make revdep-rebuild able to run this mode either on its > own, or as part of an otherwise general run, and then you can have > packages (or the package-manager itself, if it uses the list as well) > preserve libs as they wish, without interfering with the ability of revdep- > rebuild to detect and resolve the issues in a normal run.
And what about using portage 2.2 and be done with it. I don't see the point in reinventing the wheel yet again. Imho, revdep-rebuild and all 'misc' tools requiring users' good will like python-updater should be obsolete and phased out in favour of package manager controlled mechanisms. -- regards MM
