qmerge lacks pkg_preinst/pkg_postinst hooks for preserve_old_lib and preserve_old_lib_notify qmerge of sys-libs/readline-7.0 removes the *.so.6 libs that should be preserved which is a pain experience
preserve_old_lib and preserve_old_lib_notify are functions defined in preserve-libs.eclass. To not interfere with Portage's built-in functionality of preservation of libraries, these functions do nothing when FEATURES="... preserve-libs ..." is set: https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/tree/eclass/preserve-libs.eclass?id=e7b3670e435e5e4a7119bce5feaecc27ad46d097#n28 https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/tree/eclass/preserve-libs.eclass?id=e7b3670e435e5e4a7119bce5feaecc27ad46d097#n53 Either qmerge needs to drop "preserve-libs" from ${FEATURES} value exported to ebuild environment (much easier) or qmerge needs to implement functionality equivalent to Portage's functionality (much harder).
qmerge doesn't source eclasses afaict, it emulates a few minimal functions, such that it can install binpkgs without any dependencies (= tree). Perhaps we can provide somewhat working versions for preserve_old_lib* functions, but I'm not sure if it's really feasible.
preserve_old_lib() and preserve_old_lib_notify() looks simple enough for including in qmerge I think. But why were these integrated into FEATURES="... preserve-libs ..." ? What difference is there?
(In reply to Fabian Groffen from comment #2) > qmerge doesn't source eclasses afaict, it emulates a few minimal functions, > such that it can install binpkgs without any dependencies (= tree). > > Perhaps we can provide somewhat working versions for preserve_old_lib* > functions, but I'm not sure if it's really feasible. hmm, don't qmerge source envionment.bz2 in the binpkg ? environment has all the pkg needs, including the definition of preserve_old_lib and preserve_old_lib_notify qmerge should just mask preserve-libs in FEATURES so the pkg can use preserve_old_lib/preserve_old_lib_notify instead.
I think this is an serious problem with a simple workaround. Any chance you can filter out preserve-libs form now?
ping
patches/suggestions are welcome ...
(In reply to Fabian Groffen from comment #7) > patches/suggestions are welcome ... Right, the easy way in comment #1 is to drop preserve-libs from FEATURES. Perhaps auto appending "-preserve-libs" to FEATURES ? Actually impl. preserve-libs, I have no idea ...
hmmm, ok, that doesn't sound too hard to implement
The bug has been referenced in the following commit(s): https://gitweb.gentoo.org/proj/portage-utils.git/commit/?id=48cbbded273c08965cd33a74048596339f6d61be commit 48cbbded273c08965cd33a74048596339f6d61be Author: Fabian Groffen <grobian@gentoo.org> AuthorDate: 2020-08-17 12:30:21 +0000 Commit: Fabian Groffen <grobian@gentoo.org> CommitDate: 2020-08-17 12:30:21 +0000 qmerge: force FEATURES=-preserve-libs, bug #698462 We do not support/implement preserve-libs feature (we could), so drop it from FEATURES such that preserve_old_libs kicks in for some of the crucial libs around. Bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/698462 Signed-off-by: Fabian Groffen <grobian@gentoo.org> qmerge.c | 3 +++ 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
The bug has been closed via the following commit(s): https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/commit/?id=aa66d89f08797cc9d4f48e670fc277a57d1873bf commit aa66d89f08797cc9d4f48e670fc277a57d1873bf Author: Fabian Groffen <grobian@gentoo.org> AuthorDate: 2020-08-17 15:05:29 +0000 Commit: Fabian Groffen <grobian@gentoo.org> CommitDate: 2020-08-17 15:05:29 +0000 app-portage/portage-utils-0.89: version bump Closes: https://bugs.gentoo.org/711896 Closes: https://bugs.gentoo.org/698462 Closes: https://bugs.gentoo.org/723422 Package-Manager: Portage-2.3.103, Repoman-2.3.23 Signed-off-by: Fabian Groffen <grobian@gentoo.org> app-portage/portage-utils/Manifest | 2 +- ...age-utils-0.80.ebuild => portage-utils-0.89.ebuild} | 18 +----------------- 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
