| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
charlieg
Advocate
Joined: 30 Jul 2002
Posts: 2149
Location: Manchester UK
|
 Posted: Mon Dec 16, 2002 10:58 pm Post subject: ACCEPT_KEYWORDS, debian style |
 |
|
| GForge.org wrote: | | Debian Users can simply add "http://people.debian.org/~bayle/" to /etc/apt/sources.list and type "apt-get install gforge" to install a working GForge-3.0pre6 system, thanks to Christian Bayle and the Debian-SF project. |
This would be cool under portage; not necessarily with specific usernames but perhaps arbitrary keywords...
...wait a miniute. ACCEPT_KEYWORDS="~arch" springs to mind. Is this Gentoo's attempt to offer similar functionality.
What I don't like about the way ACCEPT_KEYWORDS works is it allows you to upgrade your system upon unstable libs that are a pain to remove or, even worse, unintentionally remove. (glibc springs to mind!)
I think the problem lies in the rather crud way soft links are used in /lib and other lib directories. I mean why should libc.so.6 (!?) link to either libc.so.2.2.5 or libc.so.2.3.1 when the latter is not backwards compatable. Surely that would be a reason for libc.so.6 to become libc.so.7!
Unfortunately this is a problem more with GNU/Linux than with Gentoo as a distribution, which makes this more of a rant than a rave.
I wonder if there's a way to solve this.
Back to the point though, wouldn't it be awesome to have less 'system critical ways' to have custom, distributed additions to the portage tree like Debian does?
_________________
Want Free games?
Free Gamer - open source games list & commentary
Open source web-enabled rich UI platform: Vexi |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
rac
Bodhisattva
Joined: 30 May 2002
Posts: 6553
Location: Japanifornia
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 16, 2002 11:03 pm Post subject: Re: ACCEPT_KEYWORDS, debian style |
|
|
| charlieg wrote: | | I mean why should libc.so.6 (!?) link to either libc.so.2.2.5 or libc.so.2.3.1 when the latter is not backwards compatable. |
glibc 2.3.1 is backwards compatible with 2.2.5. Dynamically linked programs that were built against 2.2.5 run when 2.3.1 is dropped in, without error. The problem I believe you are referring to is that the reverse is not true: once you have compiled some programs against 2.3.1, you cannot downgrade to 2.2.5 without breaking them. Since fixing this would require a time machine, I don't really see what could be done.
_________________
For every higher wall, there is a taller ladder |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
Gentoo Chat
