Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2010 13:42:26 -0700 From: Garrett Cooper <yanefbsd@gmail.com> To: Rainer Hurling <rhurlin@gwdg.de> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: HEADSUP: zlib updated [svn commit: r205471 - in head: . lib/libz lib/libz/contrib lib/libz/doc sys/sys] Message-ID: <l2w7d6fde3d1004041342p59aace2fkf0c9d79a06e1643a@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4BB881F4.1030405@gwdg.de> References: <4BA7E0B8.3080406@delphij.net> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1003261130360.30574@fledge.watson.org> <v2t7d6fde3d1004040424yb27d86b1qcce2fcd3f95ca599@mail.gmail.com> <4BB881F4.1030405@gwdg.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 5:11 AM, Rainer Hurling <rhurlin@gwdg.de> wrote: > On 04.04.2010 13:24 (UTC+1), Garrett Cooper wrote: >> >> On 3/26/10, Robert Watson<rwatson@freebsd.org> =A0wrote: >>> >>> On Mon, 22 Mar 2010, Xin LI wrote: >>> >>>> A MFC of this update is planned, but we will have to make some rather >>>> aggressive changes against the library and more testing. >>>> >>>> Please make sure that you have at least libxml2-2.7.6_2 in your ports >>>> tree >>>> >>>> before even thinking about updating your ports tree. =A0Older libxml2 = uses >>>> some knowledge of zlib internals that has been changed in this update >>>> which >>>> is known to cause problem. >>> >>> While the update sounds like a good idea (as does moving to symbol >>> verisoning >>> for this library), I'm not yet convinced an MFC is a good idea given th= e >>> compatibility issues you describe. =A0Perhaps you could clarify a bit t= he >>> failure mode: this affects only people who rebuild their ports using >>> exactly >>> the same ports versions, but after having done an upgrade that includes >>> this >>> update? =A0It sounds like existing binaries will continue to work since >>> they >>> will reference the old library version? >> >> Yes, but the number of libraries which need to be fixed is a pain. If >> you go the conservative (not ultra conservative) route, you'll have to >> rebuild all dependencies of graphics/png and graphics/tiff (which >> includes a ton of gnome apps, X, etc). Oh, and did I forget to mention >> that libtool hardcodes paths and versioning information? Of course >> most people won't see this fact until they run make delete-old-libs, >> but it's a doosy... This is the primary reason why Gentoo Linux has a >> script to clean up these [libtool] messes... > > To avoid the biggest trouble when updating I temporarily went another way= . > Before 'make delete-old-libs' I made a copy of libz.so.5 under compat: > > cp -p /lib/libz.so.5 /usr/local/lib/compat/ > cp -p /usr/lib32/libz.so.5 /usr/local/lib32/compat/ > > I plan to delete these copies in some weeks. Do you think this is ok or d= o I > have to expect unwanted side effects? I'm pretty sure that works as well (just make sure to rerun ldconfig and ldconfig -32 after the fact -- or do /etc/rc.d/ldconfig restart, boot your system into multiuser mode, etc, and you should be in good shape); it should get you past this transition. It would be nice if there an entry in UPDATING added for this to warn people of the breakage and this potential suggested workaround *HINT*... >> That point alone is a reason for being ultra-conservative with this >> MFCing change. This won't affect folks building from scratch after >> this commit, but it'll easily kill off an afternoon or day for folks >> upgrading if they one isn't careful because the impact is large. >> >> Of course scripting the activity to avoid these times of base system >> library bumps is trivial, but my script that I whipped up still has >> rough edges and I'd rather not submit it quite yet... Thanks, -Garrett
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?l2w7d6fde3d1004041342p59aace2fkf0c9d79a06e1643a>