Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 18:40:27 -0400 From: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> To: Joe Marcus Clarke <marcus@marcuscom.com> Cc: ports@freebsd.org, Jeremy Messenger <mezz7@cox.net>, Doug Barton <dougb@freebsd.org>, Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Subject: Re: HEADS UP: xorg upgrade plans Message-ID: <20070507224027.GA58100@xor.obsecurity.org> In-Reply-To: <1178577276.94597.49.camel@shumai.marcuscom.com> References: <20070502193159.GB42482@xor.obsecurity.org> <463F7236.4080108@FreeBSD.org> <20070507184231.GA50639@xor.obsecurity.org> <op.try3lgvv9aq2h7@mezz.mezzweb.com> <20070507201448.GA52651@xor.obsecurity.org> <op.try4tyhd9aq2h7@mezz.mezzweb.com> <20070507204414.GA53358@xor.obsecurity.org> <op.try8u2jj9aq2h7@mezz.mezzweb.com> <20070507222645.GB57768@xor.obsecurity.org> <1178577276.94597.49.camel@shumai.marcuscom.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--zhXaljGHf11kAtnf
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Mon, May 07, 2007 at 06:34:36PM -0400, Joe Marcus Clarke wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-05-07 at 18:26 -0400, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> > > >>>I dispute the correctness of this entry. The old libraries in
> > > >>>lib/compat/pkg are not linked to directly by new builds. The only
> > > >>>situation in which something might end up being linked to 2 versio=
ns
> > > >>>of the library is if it pulls in a library dependency from an exis=
ting
> > > >>>port that is still linked to the old library. In this situation t=
he
> > > >>>build would be broken with or without lib/compat/pkg (in the latter
> > > >>>case, you have an installed port linked to a library that is entir=
ely
> > > >>>missing, so that port will be nonfunctional).
> > > >>>
> > > >>>Kris
> > > >
> > > >I guess your silence means you agree with me here :)
> > >=20
> > > Yeah, I guess and unsure at the same time since I didn't write this e=
ntry. =20
> > > :-)
> >=20
> > OK.
>=20
> I didn't write it either, but it holds some truth. Yes, not having the
> library at all would cause a build failure, but having multiple versions
> of the same library can lead to runtime failures. It's much easier to
> troubleshoot a missing .so that it is to hunt down strange runtime
> failures (usually).
>=20
> I'm not arguing for or against portmaster, or the "keeping old shared
> objects" functionality. I'm just putting this FAQ entry in context.
> Yes, perhaps it could be re-worded for clarity.
It is true that this situation causes weird runtime errors when it
arises, but the underlying cause is not because of portupgrade's
saving of the old libraries (it's whatever lead to the situation of an
old port not being rebuilt when the shared library version changed).
i.e. probably because a developer forgot to bump the portrevision.
BTW, for users of portupgrade, the libchk port makes tracking down
this kind of problem ("what installed port is linked to the old
library and needs to be rebuilt"?) easy.
Kris
--zhXaljGHf11kAtnf
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (FreeBSD)
iD8DBQFGP6rbWry0BWjoQKURAnhZAKCcftKV2HVvvWl7Sf6b6ASEiwYBZACdHeIB
E3JsDtAgPrkq2cS6KGqHhn0=
=hKBB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--zhXaljGHf11kAtnf--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070507224027.GA58100>