Re: [gentoo-alt] preserving libmpfr.so.4.1.6

[Benda Xu]

Hi Steven,

Steven Trogdon <strogdon@×××××.edu> writes:

> So, since I did not have FEATURES=-preserve-libs I proceeded to unmask
> mpfr-4.0.0-r1 and continued with the emerge of sage with the hope that libs
> were preserved. The short story is that I ended up with a broken gcc since the
> subject libraries were not preserved. This is more elaborately documented at
> https://github.com/cschwan/sage-on-gentoo/issues/497
>
> Fortunately, the gcc was recovered by linking to the host (debian) libmpfr and
> rebuilding the prefix mpfr-3.1.6. So, is there any way to check before one
> attempts to do this sort of thing that libs in question are being preserved? I
> can certainly try this again - it may have been gremlins - since I believe I can
> recover if it fails, but it would be nice to know whether things will work or
> whether portage is broken. Here I'm using portage-2.3.20

Thanks for tracking this down.  If I were you, I would raise a bug to
the portage team.

We might need to compare different versions of portage and bisect.

Benda