Summary: | library updating breaks dependant applications | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Portage Development | Reporter: | Ole Tange <bugs.gentoo.org> |
Component: | Unclassified | Assignee: | Portage team <dev-portage> |
Status: | RESOLVED DUPLICATE | ||
Severity: | minor | CC: | alain, eric.brown, esigra, pasky, tools-portage |
Priority: | High | ||
Version: | unspecified | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- | |
Attachments: | Perl script for ldd-checks |
Description
Ole Tange
2003-03-28 06:21:59 UTC
I just wrote a small perl script that may help detect the ldd-problems. The script is attached Created attachment 9946 [details]
Perl script for ldd-checks
Run with: ldd-check.pl /usr/bin/*
Sorry to say this, but the problem here isn't how to fix this... we're all aware of both the problem and how to fix it. The real problem is time, eventually reverse dependancy checking will be added to portage. Until that day, this problem will remain a problem. Now we have revdep-rebuild, which could be taken advantage of when doing this. The need for this bug getting fixed demonstrates nicely on bug 78313. We should somehow detect that this library is going away, then do the reverse dependency search and rebuild all the binaries using it, then finally remove the library. The problem is that running revdep-rebuild takes rather long time, so if some equivalent checking would be done at each emerge, it could slow things down considerably. *** Bug 92023 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** Isn ja(In reply to comment #6) > Isn ja(In reply to comment #6) > Isn´t this a dupe of Bug 1991, anyway? It is now ;) *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 1991 *** Keep it open. Actually, ok. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 1991 *** |