| 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) |
Archives