1 |
El sáb, 12-02-2011 a las 18:22 +0100, Martin Doucha escribió: |
2 |
> Dne 12.2.2011 16:50, Pacho Ramos napsal(a): |
3 |
> > Then, my idea would the following: |
4 |
> > |
5 |
> > Would be nice if I could tell portage to make compilation think |
6 |
> > libglitz-glx.so.1 is not present in real system (maybe sandbox could |
7 |
> > prevent its readability inside build environment), and then, I could run |
8 |
> > "revdep-rebuild --library libglitz-glx.so.1" before removing glitz and |
9 |
> > affected apps would not link to it, allowing me to safely remove glitz |
10 |
> > later without having had a broken system at any time. |
11 |
> > |
12 |
> > What do you think? Thanks |
13 |
> |
14 |
> I think you want to update to portage-2.2 (you need to unmask it |
15 |
> manually). It does exactly what you want in this case. |
16 |
> |
17 |
> Regards, |
18 |
> Martin Doucha |
19 |
> |
20 |
> |
21 |
|
22 |
I am not sure if portage-2.2 would also cover this case: in this |
23 |
example, the problem appears because of people uninstalling |
24 |
*intentionally* media-libs/glitz (as it's no longer needed) |