[arch-dev-public] dash package in core?
Why is the dash package in core compiled against klibc? It is a package installed inside the normal system, so there is no reason to use klibc. Furthermore, why does the package not depend on klibc? klibc packages have to be recompiled with almost every klibc version and there is no way to know which packages to recompile unless pacman -Qi klibc shows them. (This is another example why not adding dependencies just because they are in base is a bad idea). Right now, /bin/dash will not start.
On Tue, Mar 04, 2008 at 11:58:44AM +0100, Thomas Bächler wrote:
Why is the dash package in core compiled against klibc? It is a package installed inside the normal system, so there is no reason to use klibc.
Furthermore, why does the package not depend on klibc? klibc packages have to be recompiled with almost every klibc version and there is no way to know which packages to recompile unless pacman -Qi klibc shows them. (This is another example why not adding dependencies just because they are in base is a bad idea). Right now, /bin/dash will not start.
Well, here are some informations : http://www.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/2007-November/003392.html It looks like no one provided any feedbacks back then. Also doesn't it make sense when building statically to only put the dependencies in makedepends and not depends? But if it was built statically, I don't understand why it breaks after the first klibc upgrade. And apparently neither does Dan, since he thought that this statically built dash was unbreakable :)
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 5:24 AM, Xavier <shiningxc@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Mar 04, 2008 at 11:58:44AM +0100, Thomas Bächler wrote:
Why is the dash package in core compiled against klibc? It is a package installed inside the normal system, so there is no reason to use klibc.
Furthermore, why does the package not depend on klibc? klibc packages have to be recompiled with almost every klibc version and there is no way to know which packages to recompile unless pacman -Qi klibc shows them. (This is another example why not adding dependencies just because they are in base is a bad idea). Right now, /bin/dash will not start.
Well, here are some informations : http://www.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/2007-November/003392.html
Thanks Xavier. When I don't get a single response to a thread, I assume my shit works.
It looks like no one provided any feedbacks back then. Also doesn't it make sense when building statically to only put the dependencies in makedepends and not depends? But if it was built statically, I don't understand why it breaks after the first klibc upgrade. And apparently neither does Dan, since he thought that this statically built dash was unbreakable :)
Responded to this already- I realized this error and had it fixed locally, but I guess it does make sense that I should have just pushed the rebuild to testing. Thanks for noticing the issue though and fixing it. -Dan
As I figured out by now, dash was supposed to be a rock-solid, lightweight, fast shell. It was supposed to be built statically, but was indeed linked against a specific klibc version. -4 fixes that and also moves the manpages to /usr/share/man for FHS compliance.
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 6:22 AM, Thomas Bächler <thomas@archlinux.org> wrote:
As I figured out by now, dash was supposed to be a rock-solid, lightweight, fast shell.
It was supposed to be built statically, but was indeed linked against a specific klibc version. -4 fixes that and also moves the manpages to /usr/share/man for FHS compliance.
I had this fixed locally, but I was going to wait until klibc & friends made it out of testing. Since your changes are identical to mine, I'll get back to you on the signoff once I switch to your package. Can you send me a quick email next time you bump my package? -Dan
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 6:46 AM, Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 6:22 AM, Thomas Bächler <thomas@archlinux.org> wrote:
As I figured out by now, dash was supposed to be a rock-solid, lightweight, fast shell.
It was supposed to be built statically, but was indeed linked against a specific klibc version. -4 fixes that and also moves the manpages to /usr/share/man for FHS compliance.
I had this fixed locally, but I was going to wait until klibc & friends made it out of testing.
Since your changes are identical to mine, I'll get back to you on the signoff once I switch to your package.
Signoff, i686. -Dan
On Thu, 6 Mar 2008, Dan McGee wrote:
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 6:46 AM, Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 6:22 AM, Thomas Bächler <thomas@archlinux.org> wrote:
As I figured out by now, dash was supposed to be a rock-solid, lightweight, fast shell.
It was supposed to be built statically, but was indeed linked against a specific klibc version. -4 fixes that and also moves the manpages to /usr/share/man for FHS compliance.
I had this fixed locally, but I was going to wait until klibc & friends made it out of testing.
Since your changes are identical to mine, I'll get back to you on the signoff once I switch to your package.
Signoff, i686.
-Dan
Signoff x86_64 -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
participants (4)
-
Dan McGee
-
Eric Belanger
-
Thomas Bächler
-
Xavier