El mié, 06-06-2012 a las 14:59 -0700, Brian Harring escribió: > On Tue, Jun 05, 2012 at 07:18:01PM -0700, Zac Medico wrote: > > On 06/05/2012 05:51 PM, Michael Weber wrote: > > > Is there any chance to detect this ZLIB_VERSION problem with > > > revdep-rebuild (worst case: add a list of possibly broken packages > > > with tests)? > > > > I'd suggest a special ebuild phase to check for ABI changes, like the > > pre_pkg_preinst_abi_check phase suggested here: > > > > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=192319#c20 > > Same thing I said in '07; I don't have a problem w/ hooks for ebuilds > to specify additional QA checks, but this *cannot* be the user's end > solution- it needs to be purely for making it easier for devs to spot > their screwups. In other words, revdep-rebuild shouldn't be involved; > this should spot/complain that zlib (for example) changed abi w/out a > matching metadata setting/whatever, rather than having checks done in > the consumers. > > Using this for anything other than a QA check of the originating > package, basically has an end result of us going towards a > non-deterministic resolution model- which is a clusterfuck, frankly. > > ~harring > >
Personally, my intention was exactly that: use that check to allow devs to detect the problem and commit a proper ebuild (this test could even be fatal to really enforce developers to not miss it)
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
