FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Gentoo > Gentoo Portage Developer

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 02-12-2011, 04:22 PM
Martin Doucha
 
Default About how to make compilation think some files are missing

Dne 12.2.2011 16:50, Pacho Ramos napsal(a):
> Then, my idea would the following:
>
> Would be nice if I could tell portage to make compilation think
> libglitz-glx.so.1 is not present in real system (maybe sandbox could
> prevent its readability inside build environment), and then, I could run
> "revdep-rebuild --library libglitz-glx.so.1" before removing glitz and
> affected apps would not link to it, allowing me to safely remove glitz
> later without having had a broken system at any time.
>
> What do you think? Thanks

I think you want to update to portage-2.2 (you need to unmask it
manually). It does exactly what you want in this case.

Regards,
Martin Doucha
 
Old 02-12-2011, 05:57 PM
Pacho Ramos
 
Default About how to make compilation think some files are missing

El sáb, 12-02-2011 a las 18:22 +0100, Martin Doucha escribió:
> Dne 12.2.2011 16:50, Pacho Ramos napsal(a):
> > Then, my idea would the following:
> >
> > Would be nice if I could tell portage to make compilation think
> > libglitz-glx.so.1 is not present in real system (maybe sandbox could
> > prevent its readability inside build environment), and then, I could run
> > "revdep-rebuild --library libglitz-glx.so.1" before removing glitz and
> > affected apps would not link to it, allowing me to safely remove glitz
> > later without having had a broken system at any time.
> >
> > What do you think? Thanks
>
> I think you want to update to portage-2.2 (you need to unmask it
> manually). It does exactly what you want in this case.
>
> Regards,
> Martin Doucha
>
>

I am not sure if portage-2.2 would also cover this case: in this
example, the problem appears because of people uninstalling
*intentionally* media-libs/glitz (as it's no longer needed)
 
Old 02-12-2011, 10:43 PM
Zac Medico
 
Default About how to make compilation think some files are missing

On 02/12/2011 07:50 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> This comes from glitz removal (bug #330397), as soon as cairo-1.10 gets
> stabilized, depclean will try to remove glitz, but removing glitz will
> break a lot of apps, needing to rebuild them and, until then, having a
> partially broken system.
>
> I then thought on running revdep-rebuild --library libglitz-glx.so.1
> BEFORE removing glitz (to prevent breakage), but later I remembered it
> wouldn't work as rebuilt packages would link again against
> libglitz-glx.so.1.
>
> Then, my idea would the following:
>
> Would be nice if I could tell portage to make compilation think
> libglitz-glx.so.1 is not present in real system (maybe sandbox could
> prevent its readability inside build environment), and then, I could run
> "revdep-rebuild --library libglitz-glx.so.1" before removing glitz and
> affected apps would not link to it, allowing me to safely remove glitz
> later without having had a broken system at any time.
>
> What do you think? Thanks

Ideally, the build system(s) involved would have options to explicitly
disable linking against the deprecated library.

Barring that possibility, something like your sandbox idea seems like
the second-best solution.

On par with the the sandbox idea would be to migrate the deprecated
library to a directory which is not included in the default library
search path, and to use a global LD_LIBRARY_PATH setting so that your
apps can find it until they are rebuilt. Then you could execute your
rebuilds in an environment with a modified LD_LIBRARY_PATH value that
excludes the path of the deprecated library.
--
Thanks,
Zac
 
Old 02-13-2011, 10:54 AM
Pacho Ramos
 
Default About how to make compilation think some files are missing

El sáb, 12-02-2011 a las 15:43 -0800, Zac Medico escribió:
> On 02/12/2011 07:50 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > This comes from glitz removal (bug #330397), as soon as cairo-1.10 gets
> > stabilized, depclean will try to remove glitz, but removing glitz will
> > break a lot of apps, needing to rebuild them and, until then, having a
> > partially broken system.
> >
> > I then thought on running revdep-rebuild --library libglitz-glx.so.1
> > BEFORE removing glitz (to prevent breakage), but later I remembered it
> > wouldn't work as rebuilt packages would link again against
> > libglitz-glx.so.1.
> >
> > Then, my idea would the following:
> >
> > Would be nice if I could tell portage to make compilation think
> > libglitz-glx.so.1 is not present in real system (maybe sandbox could
> > prevent its readability inside build environment), and then, I could run
> > "revdep-rebuild --library libglitz-glx.so.1" before removing glitz and
> > affected apps would not link to it, allowing me to safely remove glitz
> > later without having had a broken system at any time.
> >
> > What do you think? Thanks
>
> Ideally, the build system(s) involved would have options to explicitly
> disable linking against the deprecated library.
>
> Barring that possibility, something like your sandbox idea seems like
> the second-best solution.
>
> On par with the the sandbox idea would be to migrate the deprecated
> library to a directory which is not included in the default library
> search path, and to use a global LD_LIBRARY_PATH setting so that your
> apps can find it until they are rebuilt. Then you could execute your
> rebuilds in an environment with a modified LD_LIBRARY_PATH value that
> excludes the path of the deprecated library.

Didn't think about that last LD_LIBRARY_PATH option, looks easier for
now. Thanks
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 10:07 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org