On 04.04.2010 13:24 (UTC+1), Garrett Cooper wrote: > On 3/26/10, Robert Watson<rwatson_at_freebsd.org> wrote: >> 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. Older 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 the >> compatibility issues you describe. Perhaps you could clarify a bit the >> 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? It 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 do I have to expect unwanted side effects? Thanks, Rainer Hurling > 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...Received on Sun Apr 04 2010 - 10:11:38 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:02 UTC