Jesús Guerrero <i92gu...@terra.es> writes: > Thanks for the feedback. However there's one thing I can't understand: > whether the libraries are kept of removed is decided at the merge time, > isn't it? So, whatever breaks, breaks when using "emerge" to update the > offending library, the one that will break the ABI. So, how can using a > tool *after that* have any impact over what's broken? It can fix the > problem, but so can revdep-rebuild. > > I mean: if the old libs with the old abi's are kept, how it is relevant if > you are using @preserved-rebuild, revdep-rebuild or another method, or none > at all? Your programs will continue to work ok without needing to rebuild > anything, won't them? And after rebuilding the package it's irrelevant > *how* did you rebuild them... I must obviously be missing something here, > if you have the time please, direct me to an adequate source of information > or explain a bit, I am curious.
The difference is that with the new @preserved-rebuild the 'old' library is not deleted until all of the dependent packages have been successfully rebuilt to use the 'new' library. With the old revdep-rebuild mechanism, the 'old' library was deleted during the upgrade emerge. Therefore after the new library was merged, packages which depended on the old library could not be run[1] until these dependent packages were rebuilt to use the new library. [1] Though any which were running at the time the new library was merged would continue to run.
