From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JZoPS-0005Rj-7k for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 14:27:54 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D6E70E093A; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 14:27:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bacchus.cwi.nl (bacchus.cwi.nl [192.16.191.9]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 997A4E093A for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 14:27:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from gentoo.org (pegasus.ins.cwi.nl [192.16.196.142]) by bacchus.cwi.nl (8.13.6/8.12.3) with ESMTP id m2DER49Z016999 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 15:27:04 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 15:27:04 +0100 From: Fabian Groffen To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Help offered - Portage tree Message-ID: <20080313142704.GF1073@gentoo.org> Mail-Followup-To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org References: <430880c50803121635g294f505av259707f7e6a746bb@mail.gmail.com> <1205415290.17945.19.camel@nc.nor.wtbts.org> <47D92F32.8070703@gentoo.org> <47D930BC.3050708@gentoo.org> <52737.192.168.2.159.1205417733.squirrel@www.aei-tech.com> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <52737.192.168.2.159.1205417733.squirrel@www.aei-tech.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (Linux 2.6.23.15-137.fc8, VIM - Vi IMproved 7.1) Organization: Gentoo Foundation, Inc. X-Archives-Salt: 5bbd2814-6a0f-4c0e-8f3b-e14ebdc76e01 X-Archives-Hash: 89837eceeb203a2584f93908cbf9d620 (I experimented with binpkgs a little while ago in Prefix) On 13-03-2008 10:15:33 -0400, Caleb Tennis wrote: > > +1 on that and if people who use binary pkgs don't tell us what breaks, > > we won't know. > > I'll kick it off, then. > > The binpkg format needs some way to store the actual versions of the > dependencies as they were on the machine the package was compiled on. > Then, when emerging the binpkg, someway to force those dependencies on > the new install machine would be nice. > > I'll give an example. Package A was built on machine 1, and has a dep on > >=openssl-0.9.7. Machine 1 has openssl-0.9.8 already installed. Binary package > built, no problem. > > Now, we attempt to install binary package A on machine 2, which has > openssl-0.9.7. It installs fine, deps met. But, whoops, there's some > symbols missing when we go to use package A on machine 2. After some > time, we finally realize it's because we need new openssl. Isn't that stored in the NEEDED file? > I use this example because it's actually hit me before, but it extends > to lots of other scenarios. The obvious fix is to either use --deep, > or just make sure you need machine 2 up to date with machine 1, though > that's difficult to do when you're talking about machine 301 and > machine 559. > > If there was a way to tell the bin package installer to make sure you > met all of the same minimum verisons of the deps as they were on the > original compiling machine, that would be fantastic. I guess ideally the SLOTs should match, as for instance libpcre 7.5 and 7.6 work fine as long as libpcre.so.0 is there. (No guarantees) But even, for platforms that need libgcc_s.so.1, any gcc that provides it should be fine. Though luckily gcc is almost never in DEPEND/RDEPEND. > Now, I'm happy to file a bug and assign it (to the portage team?), but > I view this really as a wishlist item, and since admittedly very few > devs use the binpkg stuff, I didn't see it as something that would > probably get acted upon anyway. I'm not complaining about that > either, just merely stating a fact. I think binpkgs store more information than you think. It's just that Portage doesn't fully use it (yet). -- Fabian Groffen Gentoo on a different level -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list