Claudio Freire wrote:
Worse, I'm not even allowed to upgrade from suse packages from different versions!... (or so some, including you have told me).
Yes you can. That you don't know how to isn't something to be bitching about.
Oh, You and Christian need to get on the same page. Try upgrading libperl from 5.16.0 -> 5.16.1, .2 or .3 They are ALL binary API compat -- str8 from the perldev's mouth. Even the major versions, for many purposes, OFTEN have been -- **BUT**, a simple cpan -r or cpan upgrade has never failed to bring modules in sync with the current perl for any of my modules.
You can't build just any version of the libs, you've been told that, although it's pretty well known. You need a binary-compatible replacement,
The above ARE binary compat, but Suse has version checks in the products like gvim to disable their functioning if your version is off. As for libc - the only reason I tried building that myself initially, was to get a version that was 'the latest' that would support 14, 15, 16 the next (17). So I wouldn't have to worry about libc compat if I wanted to switch up in versions. and for that you may want to start by applying
openSuse-specific patches.
Like the ones that break normal functionality applied to BASH or break parallel sorting?
If your libs don't work without the patches, it means the patches are needed for binary compatibility. You don't want the patches? Tough luck.
It's not the patches that are needed but symbols that are needed -- If I don't use features you have bound in, the code doesn't travel those paths. It's like in gvim when configured correctly, -- if I don't use python, it doesn't load it -- so the binary version doesn't matter. If the OWL extensions had been put in their own lib and dlloaded at run time, I wouldn't have to worry about patching them or including them.
Since you seem to love building your own stuff so much it's a wonder why you're not using Gentoo. Really. I don't use Gentoo because I don't want to spend my life building stuff, but you are, so... why not? It's not an attempt to get rid of you, it's just puzzling and I'd like to know. -- I don't take it as an attempt to get rid of me.
I don't like building EVERYTHING. I have a few things I care about and use in my development or to run my system. I've used shell and perl scripts to automate and run most of the stuff I do on my system Shell for simple, perl for more complex. I generally rebuild my kernel for efficiency and trying out new features.
In any case, binary compatibility is a delicate beast.
Only when it is built in a fragile manner. I didn't have anywhere near these problems the farther back we go. 11.x didn't have so many troublesome interlocks. 10.x and 9.x I remember as being generally golden. 8.x -- 7.x -- 6.x, getting too far back to remember. the details. But never the problems I've had in the 12.X series..
So... you broke it. It's no wonder, it's easy to break.
It wasn't so easy if you just a we bit careful and willing to clean up after yourself back in the 11.x and before series. Now, everything is booby trapped -- no more looking under the hood. You seem to always start from
pristine upstream tarballs, configure && make,
Actually, the only things I have done that for were the kernel, and perl. First exception was when suse released transmission with certain features disabled. Latest version I'm running from a modified rpm. I've got other things I want to be doing than to to do than maintain my computers 24/7, but if they aren't working right, it's hard to do many of the things I like doing.
that's not the way to get binary-compatible replacements for a whole distro installation. You want to start with RPM sources. You want to read the SPEC file, and follow it.
I usually do, but the specs have been a source of problem when they say: req: prod (version=x) Not req prod or rec prod (version>=x), but locking them together. As to return to the title of this email -- IT WASN'T ME who broke binary compatibility --- christian said it was suse that did it by design -- intentionally based on the advice of a 2 year old webpage. If suse can't keep binary compatibility in keeping the Stand Alone Shell, stand alone, why would you lecture *ME* on keeping it? Note -- the SASH isn't standalone just because of linking -- it had many of the basic core util functions built in -- that's what made it stand alone. I.e. replacing it with dash would be entirely inappropriate. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org