[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: lib/42182: libpixman-1.so.0 is no longer available in NetBSD 5.0_STABLE
The following reply was made to PR lib/42182; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: "David H. Gutteridge" <dhgutteridge%sympatico.ca@localhost>
To: Soren Jacobsen <snj%pobox.com@localhost>
Subject: Re: lib/42182: libpixman-1.so.0 is no longer available in NetBSD
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2009 19:28:01 -0400
On 2009-10-31, at 5:50 PM, Soren Jacobsen wrote:
> On Oct 31, 2009, at 11:45 AM, David Gutteridge wrote:
>> The following reply was made to PR lib/42182; it has been noted by
>> From: David Gutteridge <dhgutteridge%sympatico.ca@localhost>
>> To: gnats-bugs%netbsd.org@localhost
>> Subject: Re: lib/42182: libpixman-1.so.0 is no longer available in
>> NetBSD 5.0_STABLE
>> Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2009 14:08:30 -0400
>> Those two libraries are also not covered off by the postinstall(8)
>> obsolete check. So an upgrade masks the problem. (I've just
>> encountered this.)
> What do you mean covered off by the postinstall obsolete check?
> Removing the old libraries would make the situation even worse, and
> I wouldn't call leaving them in place masking the problem.
> I'm not sure there's really much that can be done about this PR.
> We'll need to have separate 5.0 and 5.1 pkg binaries, but after an
> upgrade, no previously installed packages should break, because the
> old libraries will still be installed.
> pkg_add has always (or at least for quite a long time -- I can't say
> off of the top of my head whether this check has been there since
> the very beginning) complained about version differences, and this
> is one of the cases "protected" (in the sense of "yes, I admit it
> sucks, but hey, technically we did warn you") by this check.
I must have just misunderstood the meaning of "obsolete", then. I took
it to be functionality that shows any differences from what the state
of the system would be if a clean install had been done instead of an
upgrade from source. (Local customizations aside.) But it's more
nuanced/sophisticated/specialized than that, then. (My notion of it in
part was as a support tool to explain differences between systems with
the same release branch and CVS source date. Obviously that's not its
primary purpose, regardless.)
By "masks the problem", I meant the version mismatch probably hasn't
turned up for too many people, so that's why there wasn't much traffic
about this topic. I was alluding more to the fact I hadn't seen it
documented elsewhere, and was offering an explanation as to why it
might've been missed. (Here's where someone will show me an incredibly
obvious place it was mentioned that I overlooked...)
Sorry for the misunderstanding,
Main Index |
Thread Index |