Re: boost 1_58_0 - rootfile

[Michael Tremer <michael.tremer@ipfire.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1806 bytes --]

Hi,

On Mon, 2015-05-18 at 20:16 +0200, Matthias Fischer wrote:
> On 18.05.2015 11:46, Michael Tremer wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Sat, 2015-05-16 at 13:59 +0200, Matthias Fischer wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> is there a specific reason for commenting the line
> >>
> >> ...
> >> #usr/lib/libboost_math_c99l.so.1.55.0
> >> ...
> >>
> >> in rootfile for 'boost 1_55_0'?
> >
> > No. I must have overlooked that when I created that file.
> >
> >> All other '/usr/lib/libboost*'-files are uncommented, only this one is
> >> ~deactivated.
> >>
> >> This came to me while building an update to 'boost 1_58_0'.
> >
> > Updating boost requires to ship everything that is linked against it
> > again and you will need to have something that removes the old
> > libraries.
> 
> This is seems to be more complex than I thought. How do I find which 
> parts of IPFire are "linked against boost"? I can run 'ldd' against a 
> binary to find which libraries it needs, but how to work the other way 
> around?

Indeed you would need to do this with all ELF binaries in the system.

> > An other strategy would be to leave the old libraries there and just
> > ship the new ones. Every time when something that uses boost is updated,
> > it will switch from using the old libraries to the new ones.
> 
> If I get you right then in this case old and new libs are left in 
> '/usr/lib'. Sounds more like some kind of 'patchwork', IMHO.

No, there are reasons to leave them there for a while. Some people might
have compiled their own software and run it with older versions of some
library. We left openssl 0.9.8 around for some time. We still had to
patch it so that any vulnerabilities will get fixed. We finally drop
taht one with Core Update 90. I do not see a similar reason to keep
boost though.

> 
> Regards
> Matthias
>