Am 15.09.2014 um 14:44 schrieb Richard W.M. Jones: > On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 02:40:34PM +0200, Reindl Harald wrote: >> >> Am 15.09.2014 um 14:28 schrieb Richard W.M. Jones: >>> On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 10:57:13AM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote: >>>> 1) I run some application, which loads my foo.rb file. >>>> 2) I later update the package which removes bar.rb file. >>>> 3) And I call some_function which fails due to missing bar.rb >>> >>> How is this not 'foo' simply being broken? ie. Not expressing its >>> needs properly in its RPM dependencies? >>> >>> It would still have been broken even with a reboot >> >> no - why should it? >> >> 'foo' is loaded in memory, updated and now has different dependencies >> no longer require 'bar.rb' but your running version still do > > Please read closely. 'foo' has *not* been updated. > > If 'foo' had been updated, we would have spotted it and restarted that > process using my technique outlined in the previous email cross deps coming in my mind foo -> library -> library -> library * the first maybe already loaded * also loaded the second one in a previous call * that version relies on teh third one for some operations * in a update the deps have changed so you may have a mix with different dep-chains in memory and some parts used the first time from disk with unexpected results
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
