Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2014 06:51:49 -0700 (MST) From: Warren Block <wblock@wonkity.com> To: Andrea Venturoli <ml@netfence.it> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ICU sweeping upgrade: bug or feature? Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1402090641420.3670@wonkity.com> In-Reply-To: <52F78316.2010502@netfence.it> References: <52F6132C.3070406@netfence.it> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1402081001470.35659@wonkity.com> <52F78316.2010502@netfence.it>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 9 Feb 2014, Andrea Venturoli wrote: > On 02/08/14 18:08, Warren Block wrote: > >> This may very well come back to bite you in the future, > > Well, as I said, this is just a temporary fix for something that, IMVHO, > shouldn't have broken in the first place. Well, yes. >> causing >> mysterious failures long after you've forgotten you did it. > > I periodically clean /usr/local/lib/compat/pkg, so it shouldn't be long > before the links and the libraries they are aliasing are both gone. > > However, what is different here from what portupgrade usually does (i.e. > leaving old libraries in that compat dir)? Sorry, I had missed that. No, it should not be as bad in compat/pkg, particularly as a temporary thing. Soft-linking libraries in the main shlib directories has come up as a frequent "fix" in the forums, along with trying to fix the long-term problems because it is usually considered a fix rather than a temporary workaround. >> Running pkg_libchk [-q] after port upgrades has worked well for me. It >> is from sysutils/bsdadminscripts by Dominic Fandrey, and easily detects >> applications that are using old libraries and should be rebuilt. It >> worked this time also. > > I normally use sysutils/libchk. I never tried pkg_libchk, but I'm curious. > What is the advantage of one over the other? >From memory, the output of pkg_libchk was more useful than that of libchk.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.BSF.2.00.1402090641420.3670>