[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: libcroco and xz
On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 11:10:38PM +0000, David Holland wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 12:33:04AM +0200, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 07:31:40PM +0000, David Holland wrote:
> > > > The problem I have with the commit is that it also hides the reverse
> > > > case. A dependency is declared as build time only, used by a
> > > > as full dependency, but explicitly linked against. I'm more inclined
> > > > care about that case than the reverse.
> > >
> > > I think that's less important. If it's an indirect dependency, it'll
> > > always be present; the only way it'll fail at runtime is if an update
> > > to libxml2 changes it to longer bring in xz. However, this will result
> > > (if handled correctly) in xz being removed from xz's bl3.mk and
> > > libcroco being revbumped and rebuilt, and then the liblzma NEEDED
> > > entry will go away in the new build. IOW, it won't fail, so there's no
> > > point worrying about it.
> > If we want to do that (I'm mildly opposed, but I agree that this will
> > hit us a lot more often), I think the correct approach is to expand the
> > list of full dependencies once. So move the pkg_info -r calls out of the
> > AWK script and provide a second version of the .depends file that
> > contains the full list of packages we are willing to accept shared
> > linking against.
> That sounds fine; however, can we have obache's version back first so
> we don't end up with pointlessly broken packages in 2012Q2?
Expanding the list obsoletes obache's change completely.
Main Index |
Thread Index |