From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECDE3138794 for ; Thu, 31 Jan 2013 12:08:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 11518E06F7; Thu, 31 Jan 2013 12:08:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6FE83E06D9 for ; Thu, 31 Jan 2013 12:08:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE8D433DC26 for ; Thu, 31 Jan 2013 12:08:07 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new using ClamAV at gentoo.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.548 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.548 tagged_above=-999 required=5.5 tests=[RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.546, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([IPv6:::ffff:127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [IPv6:::ffff:127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xd5P9enP7H1B for ; Thu, 31 Jan 2013 12:08:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from plane.gmane.org (plane.gmane.org [80.91.229.3]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 494BF33DBDC for ; Thu, 31 Jan 2013 12:08:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1U0swB-00051w-9E for gentoo-user@gentoo.org; Thu, 31 Jan 2013 13:08:15 +0100 Received: from wireless-86-50-146-205.open.aalto.fi ([86.50.146.205]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 31 Jan 2013 13:08:15 +0100 Received: from nunojsilva by wireless-86-50-146-205.open.aalto.fi with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 31 Jan 2013 13:08:15 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org From: (Nuno Silva) Subject: [gentoo-user] Re: Binary chrome - is it safe in terms of dependencies? Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 14:08:10 +0200 Message-ID: <87fw1hh7x1.fsf@ist.utl.pt> References: <20130130180924.GA16018@dethkomp> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: wireless-86-50-146-205.open.aalto.fi User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.2 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:m2TQu5yyaFXR708l0a+Hf/GKBQM= X-Archives-Salt: f9e98595-783c-4bed-8f4b-f5a383402a1d X-Archives-Hash: 4fbb758f0e3512c8f9512ead5cca3903 On 2013-01-31, Nilesh Govindrajan wrote: > On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 7:05 AM, Mike Gilbert wrote: >> On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Yohan Pereira >> wrote: >>> On 30/01/13 at 11:09pm, Nilesh Govindrajan wrote: >>>> Since Gentoo updates libraries very quickly, I'm wondering if it is >>>> safe to use the binary version? Has anyone faced library breakages on >>>> this? >>>> >>>> Chromium is easily recompiled with new libraries and you don't have a >>>> broken browser, which won't really be the case with the binary >>>> version. >>> >>> I've used the binary version (google-chrome) for a while and never >>> had any breakages. I guess if there's a library update that could >>> potentially break google-chrome the gentoo devs would add a blocker so >>> you wont be able to install the 2 at the same time. >>> >> >> Or I can just bundle a copy of the necessary libraries, similar to >> what I have done for libudev.so.0. >> > > Sounds good. I guess I'll switch to binary chrome then. Also, I suppose that, if there were library incompatibilities, the package would never go stable, or would at least, like Yohan said, lead to a block/version dependency. -- Nuno Silva (aka njsg) http://njsg.sdf-eu.org/