On Tuesday 15 May 2007, Caleb Tennis wrote:
> > I think the preserve_old_libs thing might just be the hack we need here.
>
> It's been brought to my attention that a bad side effect from using the
> preserve_old_libs method is that if an intermediary library, like qt3, gets
> rebuilt then you end u
On Tuesday 15 May 2007, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> On Dienstag, 15. Mai 2007, Caleb Tennis wrote:
> > I just read the bug, but I don't see any compelling reason against using
> > the preserve_old stuff.
>
> The big problem with it is that we do not store information about retained
> libraries and let
Christian, Raúl - you guys rock!
Carsten
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Carsten Lohrke wrote:
>
> If we want to take this to measure, it' a bigger problem for KDE users
> (unless
> built with --as-needed). The list of packages is unfortunately
> quite "impressive". What was your plan wrt. stabilisation of Gnome? I can
> look at the remaining issues this evening, s
> It's been discussed with the original maintainer over and over again,
> and the conclusion was that it's not safe to have two versions of expat
> installed on the same system. So, why don't we just stick to that and be
> done with it?
Yep, I'm on that page as well. I will push the stabilization
On Dienstag, 15. Mai 2007, Mart Raudsepp wrote:
> Ok, I can't wait with GNOME-2.16.3 that long. I'm already late a month.
> I wonder how much packages KDE needs rebuilt with the expat bump
> (revdep-rebuild --library expat.so or something like that). Maybe
> including it in the GNOME bumps is a goo
On Dienstag, 15. Mai 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> preserve_old_lib is a horrible hack that shouldn't be being used at all.
> Don't push it as an alternative for proper slotting.
In it's current state it's indeed a horrible hack. But slotting is in many
cases no solution either. When you have to
Caleb Tennis napsal(a):
>> I think the preserve_old_libs thing might just be the hack we need here.
>
> It's been brought to my attention that a bad side effect from using the
> preserve_old_libs method is that if an intermediary library, like qt3, gets
> rebuilt
> then you end up having both exp
> I think the preserve_old_libs thing might just be the hack we need here.
It's been brought to my attention that a bad side effect from using the
preserve_old_libs method is that if an intermediary library, like qt3, gets
rebuilt
then you end up having both expat libraries linked against the kde
On Dienstag, 15. Mai 2007, Caleb Tennis wrote:
> I just read the bug, but I don't see any compelling reason against using
> the preserve_old stuff.
The big problem with it is that we do not store information about retained
libraries and let portage throw warnings. When people miss such a post
in
On Tue, 15 May 2007 17:02:05 +0300
Petteri Räty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > SLOTs are for where a user may want to have multiple versions of the
> > same package installed, for example where they require headers from
> > two different versions or where they require shared objects from two
> > di
Ciaran McCreesh kirjoitti:
> On Tue, 15 May 2007 08:52:32 -0400
> Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> preserve_old_lib is a horrible hack that shouldn't be being used at
>>> all. Don't push it as an alternative for proper slotting.
>> funny, i could say the same thing for your "proper slo
> Ok, I can't wait with GNOME-2.16.3 that long. I'm already late a month.
> I wonder how much packages KDE needs rebuilt with the expat bump
> (revdep-rebuild --library expat.so or something like that). Maybe
> including it in the GNOME bumps is a good idea if that has it for more
> packages than K
> If you read the bug with loads of duplicates; it's been avoided as well,
> because it was considered unsafe for the same reason as slotting.
I just read the bug, but I don't see any compelling reason against using the
preserve_old stuff. It seems like it's a good balance that will mitigate the
On Tue, 15 May 2007 08:52:32 -0400
Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > preserve_old_lib is a horrible hack that shouldn't be being used at
> > all. Don't push it as an alternative for proper slotting.
>
> funny, i could say the same thing for your "proper slotting"
>
> SLOTing is for AP
On Tuesday 15 May 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tuesday 15 May 2007, Caleb Tennis wrote:
> > > * - This version has a new soname, so it will require a
> > > revdep-rebuild, which is probably why it hasn't been stabilized as
> > > of now.
> >
> > so
On Tue, 15 May 2007 08:22:47 -0400
Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tuesday 15 May 2007, Caleb Tennis wrote:
> > * - This version has a new soname, so it will require a
> > revdep-rebuild, which is probably why it hasn't been stabilized as
> > of now.
>
> so add a call to preserve_ol
On Tuesday 15 May 2007, Caleb Tennis wrote:
> * - This version has a new soname, so it will require a revdep-rebuild,
> which is probably why it hasn't been stabilized as of now.
so add a call to preserve_old_lib / preserve_old_lib_notify like should have
been in there in the first place ... see
On Tuesday 15 May 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> "Caleb Tennis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > * - This version has a new soname, so it will require a
> > revdep-rebuild, which is probably why it hasn't been stabilized as of
> > now.
>
> Isn't this why we have slots?
no
-mike
signature.asc
Descr
On Tue, 2007-05-15 at 07:47 -0400, Caleb Tennis wrote:
> > Yeah, exactly. I was too late to have things sorted out with people
> > maintaining (or the lack of it) to have this stabilized together with
> > GNOME-2.16, as the biggest desktop environments need to be
> > revdep-rebuilt to a large exten
> Yeah, exactly. I was too late to have things sorted out with people
> maintaining (or the lack of it) to have this stabilized together with
> GNOME-2.16, as the biggest desktop environments need to be
> revdep-rebuilt to a large extent if not using --as-needed.
>
> I hope you guys are going to do
> Isn't this why we have slots?
Yeah, but I think it's a hack in this case. All of the current versions in
portage
are 1.95, which I believe were pre-releases to 2.0. As far as I can tell,
nothing
is vastly different in 2.0 other than bug fixes and a final soname change. As
well,
we'd have t
On Tue, 15 May 2007 07:30:17 -0400 (EDT)
"Caleb Tennis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * - This version has a new soname, so it will require a
> revdep-rebuild, which is probably why it hasn't been stabilized as of
> now.
Isn't this why we have slots?
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Descriptio
On Tue, 2007-05-15 at 07:30 -0400, Caleb Tennis wrote:
> I'd like to open a bug soon requesting the stabiliztion of
> dev-libs/expat-2.0.0*.
> It's currently assigned to tcltk, but the bug traffic seems to indicate they
> don't
> know why they have it. If nobody steps up, objects, and is willin
24 matches
Mail list logo
