Mark Knecht wrote: > > But we agree that this just squelches the messages, correct? It's not > making the system's linkages more correct. It's just saying we don't > care about that directory. I think that's fine for binary packages but > it's not the same as having all the dependencies correct. > > It would be nice, I would think, to have some info somewhere on how > the binary package was built - what flags, what gcc, etc., if only for > reference. > > Cheers, > Mark >
I suspect the best solution is for the binary packages to be built statically (at least the parts that commonly result in broken dynamic links). Zac -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
