On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 1:21 PM, Thomas Bächler wrote:

Pierre Schmitz schrieb:

...

What do we learn by this? The use of provides can be dangerous when the providers have different deps. I wonder if we have more such problems.

That's why namcap should use direct link-level dependencies using readelf and not rely on the fact that a dependency already provides the library in question.

Actually, this would probably help us in a lot of ways - it'd make finding deps for rebuilds easier

Roman Kyrylych wrote:

On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 21:23, Aaron Griffin wrote:

...

On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 1:21 PM, Thomas Bächler wrote:

...

Pierre Schmitz schrieb:

...

What do we learn by this? The use of provides can be dangerous when the providers have different deps. I wonder if we have more such problems.

That's why namcap should use direct link-level dependencies using readelf and not rely on the fact that a dependency already provides the library in question.

Actually, this would probably help us in a lot of ways - it'd make finding deps for rebuilds easier

I completely agree here. Could we please change our default policy to always include direct dependencies (checked from readelf output) even if another dependency already pulls them?

So listing every single package that contains a library that is being linked to... Apart from being annoying to maintain (especially if we add versioning to them as well), that would really increase the amount of work pacman has to do in dependency checking. e.g. for subversion there is currently two dependencies, but even only considering /usr/bin/svn there would be 10x more than that. Allan

Am Sonntag 02 August 2009 11:26:51 schrieb Roman Kyrylych:

Okay, then how we currently check that subversion needs to be rebuilt on db or heimdal soname bump?

That's where the link database would help a lot. -- Pierre Schmitz, http://users.archlinux.de/~pierre