| 1 |
On 02/20/2013 12:53 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote: |
| 2 |
> El mar, 19-02-2013 a las 14:27 -0800, Zac Medico escribió: |
| 3 |
>> On 02/19/2013 12:12 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> Hello |
| 5 |
>>> |
| 6 |
>>> For some time I am running portage-2.1.x with preserve-libs enabled to |
| 7 |
>>> test it and try to prevent revdep-rebuild usage. Until now, I haven't |
| 8 |
>>> had any problems with it, but I started to test it after being running |
| 9 |
>>> udev-19x for a long time. Yesterday, my father mailed me because he got |
| 10 |
>>> udev update from 17x to 19x and emerge @preserved-rebuild only rebuilt |
| 11 |
>>> gcc, keeping other broken packages untouched (while revdep-rebuild |
| 12 |
>>> rebuilt them) |
| 13 |
>>> |
| 14 |
>>> Do you know what kind of information could I demand him to help diagnose |
| 15 |
>>> the problem? |
| 16 |
>> |
| 17 |
>> It only works if the broken packages have references to the libudev.so.0 |
| 18 |
>> (or maybe libgudev-1.0.so.0) soname in their |
| 19 |
>> /var/db/pkg/*/*/NEEDED.ELF.2 files. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> Will need to recheck in next breakage then :/ |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> Any suggestion about how to proceed when I hit this kind of problem? (I |
| 24 |
> mean, what can I provide you to try to fix this cases) |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Create a tarball of /var/db/pkg when it's in a misbehaving state, so we |
| 27 |
can us it for analysis later, after the state has changed. |
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
Thanks, |
| 30 |
Zac |
Archives