Re: (inc. note from dpkg developers) Re: Bug#XXXXXX: (far too many packages) needs rebuilt for prelinking
On Mon, 13 Jan 2003, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> 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.
Not the entire file, just the needed preload data. Similiar in idea to
/etc/ld.so.cache, or /lib/i686/ style optimiations.
> 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.
Well, I feel I'd rather not have prelink, then have it modifying files. Also,
it's not only me that thought that way, but Wichert as well.
ps: Wichert doesn't read this list, just -dpkg and -deity, and d-d-a.
> 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.
Wichert has been promising hooks for ages.
Reply to: