On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 6:34 PM, Eric Bélanger <snowmaniscool@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 2:43 AM, Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org> wrote:
Thomas Bächler wrote:
Allan McRae schrieb:
This is the point of this comment: # Run in minimal chroot to avoid false positives due to dependencies. # Chroot can be built with: # sudo mkarchroot <chrootdir>/root glibc coreutils findutils grep tar gzip
So, in your example, if you are testing if libA needs a rebuild due to libC, you only extract libA in your chroot, not libB. The ldd can not chain its way to libC. So ti ends up doing the same thing as readelf.
Now I understand it.
Still, if you use readelf it does not matter what the environment is, you could run it on any system which is not even Arch, or is the wrong architecture or anything.
Well, if that did not convince me, this does. I just noticed that "readelf --dynamic" appears to be a lot faster than "ldd". On my /usr/bin/*, readelf takes ~0.2sec while ldd takes ~12sec. I will test this out with an actual run of the script tomorrow.
Allan
Status update on the rebuild?
Well, mkinitcpio fails miserably under bash 4.0, so I definitely don't even want to push it to testing yet - and I think it's actually a bash issue (It errors saying that ;; is not a valid token in a certain case statement... ?). I can put up what I have so far somewhere, but I wanted to look at the mkinitcpio / bash interaction first before making people's systems unbootable (I did it to myself, hah). I've been real busy with work deadlines and pycon (which is neat, by the way) to deal with this now. I hope I'll have some time this weekend to play with it and get it all shaped up - maybe Dusty (who is here at pycon) and I can get the readline/bash rebuilds in shape on Saturday. Dusty, you interested? We can even do a "ArchLinux packaging" open session on it :)