sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List
List archive
Re: [SM-Discuss] Any progress on not blindly breaking the system on updates?
- From: Ismael Luceno <ismael AT iodev.co.uk>
- To: Thomas Orgis <thomas-forum AT orgis.org>
- Cc: sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
- Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] Any progress on not blindly breaking the system on updates?
- Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2020 01:01:47 +0200
On 18/Mar/2020 13:24, Thomas Orgis wrote:
> We have proposed solutions to (parts of) the problem:
>
> - https://bugs.sourcemage.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16112
> - https://bugs.sourcemage.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16100
>
> Some ancient discussions dealing with SMGL fragility:
>
> - https://bugs.sourcemage.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13121
> - https://bugs.sourcemage.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8295
>
> I am not completely sure if just keeping the libfoo.so.$SOVERSION
> without associated files/config/modules is always enough to keep things
> working for the relevant cases, but it for sure seems to work for the
> most serious breakage where a necessary tool won't even start (e.g.
> wget may have broken actual HTTPS support at runtime, but it would
> still work for plain HTTP downloads as long as the library can be
> loaded).
>
> The point I want to stress here: I don't see much point in continuing
> to try to pretend that SMGL is a viable distro as long as there is no
> progress on the problem that the patch bug 16100 should solve.
>
> I might live with SMGL being more of a toolkit to ease installation of
> a Linux-From-Scratch-like system, as it started out being exactly that
> for me. I might be able to live with the pain I inflict on myself by
> choosing to run that. But I am not willing to stand the package
> management prematurely nuking files it needs for its own operation
> again and again. It can be not very helpful. But it better not be
> actively destructive.
>
> I guess I'll have to make a personal branch of sorcery … or are we at
> the stage where everyone who wants to contribute is free to change
> things so that at least there is some progress? I'm tired of starting
> discussions that effectively end all action as the discussion dies (or
> never really begins).
>
>
> Alrighty then(?),
Not only this would not be enough, it also does not scale. The problem
is that a fix that scales means making incompatible changes.
In order to fix some of these problems we need to change our policies.
Regarding dependencies, we need to enforce version checks at least, and
we need to test the supported versions somehow.
What do we want from the system? Let's write that down.
I want to change following things about sorcery:
- unprivileged build
- mandatory staged install w/o sorcery support
- installation and removal helpers should automatically protect DSOs and
track outdated binaries for replacement
With that we would be subtantially better off, right?
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Any progress on not blindly breaking the system on updates?,
Ismael Luceno, 04/04/2020
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Any progress on not blindly breaking the system on updates?,
Thomas Orgis, 04/05/2020
- Re: [SM-Discuss] Any progress on not blindly breaking the system on updates?, Ismael Luceno, 04/05/2020
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Any progress on not blindly breaking the system on updates?,
Thomas Orgis, 04/05/2020
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.