Re: (inc. note from dpkg developers) Re: Bug#XXXXXX: (far too many packages) needs rebuilt for prelinking
On Mon, Jan 13, 2003 at 05:41:45PM -0600, Adam Heath wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Jan 2003, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
>
> > Yes, it does. Do you have any idea how it works?
>
> Another file(in the same dir or elsewhere).
At which point you have duplicates of all your libraries. In addition
to wasting 167MB on my system, you've created a whole slew of
unreproducible bug reports when libraries get out of sync.
> > If not, please stop commenting on it until you at least go read the
> > documentation.
>
> Well, fine. I still won't add any prelink support into dpkg.
No one is asking you to do the work.
> We dpkg developers reserve the right to have dpkg verify existing files before
> unpacking.
So? You integrate it with 'prelink --verify'. In both theory and
implementation it's quite simple.
On Mon, Jan 13, 2003 at 05:46:36PM -0600, Adam Heath wrote:
> I never said anything about policy. But we dpkg developers need to be
> convinced about the viability of such features, and this has not yet been
> done.
Have you ever considered how much of a pain in the ass it is to try to
convince someone who just answers every message with "you need to
convince me! And you're wrong!"? This in a thread that started with
people skills? It wasn't all that long ago I had more dpkg experience
than you did, Adam. Please don't try to use the fact that you've put
in (a lot of good) work on a project to turn yourself into some kind of
gatekeeper for All That Is Right.
> Automatic file modifications, for any means, is a rather serious flaw, imho.
I disagree with your categorical blanket here. You might want to think
about the options a little more, and come back if you have any actual
arguments against it. Meanwhile, once the other issues are resolved, I
may just implement the prelink integration as a base for further
discussion.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer
Reply to: