| 1 |
Pacho Ramos wrote: |
| 2 |
> El vie, 14-10-2011 a las 16:48 -0500, Dale escribió: |
| 3 |
>> Pacho Ramos wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> It shouldn't, I am sure I have used this some times before and it |
| 5 |
>>> worked as expected, but I don't know when revdep-rebuild cache files |
| 6 |
>>> are removed (and then, broken packages recalculated) :-/ Any |
| 7 |
>>> revdep-rebuild maintainer here to clarify this please? Thanks :) |
| 8 |
>> I always run revdep-rebuild with the -i option. It starts fresh each |
| 9 |
>> time or is supposed to anyway. This is a snipped list of what was |
| 10 |
>> rebuilt the first time and that it says it wants to rebuild again as I |
| 11 |
>> just ran it again: |
| 12 |
>> |
| 13 |
>> <<< SNIPPED>>> |
| 14 |
>> That list is identical to the first time I ran it. I don't know what |
| 15 |
>> you were expecting but this is what it does. |
| 16 |
>> |
| 17 |
>> Dale |
| 18 |
>> |
| 19 |
>> :-) :-) |
| 20 |
>> |
| 21 |
>> |
| 22 |
> Well, I would expect it to properly recalculate broken packages after |
| 23 |
> previous run that failed to complete to build failures |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
From my understanding, it looks for what packages link/use/whatever the |
| 26 |
library then it rebuilds them all. I guess this is one way to catch |
| 27 |
them all for sure but it is sort of difficult to know what was already |
| 28 |
fixed and what is still broke. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
I think I see what you are expecting and I wish it was that way but it |
| 31 |
appears we are not getting what we want with this. Is it doable, maybe, |
| 32 |
but not at the moment. By the way, I run the unstable versions of those |
| 33 |
tools. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
I guess if the emerge fails, then one would have to use the --resume |
| 36 |
option to try to rebuild packages or just rebuild what fails by hand and |
| 37 |
hope you don't miss anything. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
Dale |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
:-) :-) |
Archives