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 580B0138794 for ; Thu, 31 Jan 2013 12:26:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7DFF921C03F; Thu, 31 Jan 2013 12:26:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-qa0-f51.google.com (mail-qa0-f51.google.com [209.85.216.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C105621C005 for ; Thu, 31 Jan 2013 12:26:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qa0-f51.google.com with SMTP id cr7so1507941qab.3 for ; Thu, 31 Jan 2013 04:26:39 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=jvD8ChPgVw6IYi0tAYDoG1gdVC88aSmR3U7DajjF/oY=; b=PXwxZVSvhVStBuph5tmmbL/2IhLzJ6zIzwR9mUlL6xca36nGOO5s21oEetIqW4hAp3 fMROECo9bz4Dxx0Zxv2NW0c3Gd1vhOgCYpDGSnHdJRumm4ta9zkrPNXRUizWeX8tZyWk 0QQNevTKCvXZ3JkAq9ORfJogr6eEk6wBWcQ8++DxN8rTE0i/bsIdBG35SkqvEM195qNq UJaIBZFeWYfXEhl8CZoPXVyIazHCLxRVZ/x5Ie8XDuQ0EHIKT2FeqW8d6HKQI11AB9Xh mPlS6tmLnhw7PbQQrFn/95KBTavU4wk9QavtAZYboUKxsHjmsFN30IlA+6KgBUYqqw78 LwDA== 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 X-Received: by 10.229.193.142 with SMTP id du14mr2056254qcb.97.1359635199592; Thu, 31 Jan 2013 04:26:39 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.49.104.197 with HTTP; Thu, 31 Jan 2013 04:26:39 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.49.104.197 with HTTP; Thu, 31 Jan 2013 04:26:39 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <87fw1hh7x1.fsf@ist.utl.pt> References: <20130130180924.GA16018@dethkomp> <87fw1hh7x1.fsf@ist.utl.pt> Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 17:56:39 +0530 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Binary chrome - is it safe in terms of dependencies? From: Nilesh Govindrajan To: Gentoo User Mailing List Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001636920c7718891c04d494bdcd X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQk3vtfb/b9W/HkXbqdI/QQMNLtD/3pqb/yxRol0zn4QJ+rAA3XJz87MkYGpH5ZOADhWNFZW X-Archives-Salt: 8054c32b-2b3d-49ea-8e9d-991818a9f3fc X-Archives-Hash: 5920330c4f859d7e1ca2255f70687e6a --001636920c7718891c04d494bdcd Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Well, many times you can't really anticipate everything. I had my libreoffice-bin pdf import broken for two months because some shared library had got upgraded against which it wasn't linked. (excuse for top post, typing from mobile) -- Nilesh Govindrajan http://nileshgr.com On Jan 31, 2013 5:38 PM, "Nuno Silva" wrote: > 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/ > > > --001636920c7718891c04d494bdcd Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Well, many times you can't really anticipate everything.=

I had my libreoffice-bin pdf import broken for two months be= cause some shared library had got upgraded against which it wasn't link= ed.

(excuse for top post, typing from mobile)

--
Nilesh Govindrajan
http://nileshgr.com

On Jan 31, 2013 5:38 PM, "Nuno Silva" = <nunojsilva@ist.utl.pt> = wrote:
On 2013-01-31, Nilesh Govindrajan wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 7:05 AM, Mike Gilbert <floppym@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Yohan Pereira
>> <yohan.pereira@gmail= .com> wrote:
>>> On 30/01/13 at 11:09pm, Nilesh Govindrajan wrote:
>>>> Since Gentoo updates libraries very quickly, I'm wonde= ring if it is
>>>> safe to use the binary version? Has anyone faced library b= reakages on
>>>> this?
>>>>
>>>> Chromium is easily recompiled with new libraries and you d= on't have a
>>>> broken browser, which won't really be the case with th= e binary
>>>> version.
>>>
>>> I've used the binary version (google-chrome) for a while a= nd never
>>> had any breakages. I guess if there's a library update tha= t could
>>> potentially break google-chrome the gentoo devs would add a bl= ocker 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.or= g/


--001636920c7718891c04d494bdcd--