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 1LZuN3-0005eK-Us for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2009 21:54:22 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E4F57E038C; Wed, 18 Feb 2009 21:54:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C651BE038C for ; Wed, 18 Feb 2009 21:54:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.22.10] (ip68-4-152-120.oc.oc.cox.net [68.4.152.120]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67E4AB5BE7 for ; Wed, 18 Feb 2009 21:54:19 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <499C838C.7020906@gentoo.org> Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 13:54:20 -0800 From: Zac Medico User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (X11/20081209) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] missing-rebuild package set References: <489CC44C.3020309@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 2da52f8c-8e77-455f-a103-39393448508a X-Archives-Hash: af9da851acb72744ab82578c49639920 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Alec Warner wrote: >> As it is time for gSoC 2009; I want to inquire at the status of this >> code integration. >> Looking at HEAD it seems there are some changes left to merge. Is >> this on the roadmap? The hardcoded libraries/paths (used to filter "false positives") still need to be split out into config files before I can merge it. I'll get to that eventually but I've got lots of other more pressing things to work on a them moment. For preserve-libs, the main problems that are left are: 1) There is no protection against building packages which depend on packages for which libs are still preserved [1]. 2) Library preservation currently does not work for binutils upgrades since the binutils libraries are added to the library path via symlinks which are created by binutils-config (unlike most packages the provide libraries, the paths of libraries to which the symlinks point are not included directly in ld.so.conf). [1] http://blog.flameeyes.eu/2008/06/30/a-few-risks-i-see-related-to-the-new-portage-2-2-preserve-libs-behaviour - -- Thanks, Zac -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.10 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkmcg4sACgkQ/ejvha5XGaNaSQCg00Bcs0xCzj7/iE2cf5rxMuwT SqwAoNkSNV+mF6JIGVyttoDKKZ6fOtVs =NK/Z -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----