| 1 |
Neil Bothwick wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sat, 28 May 2016 20:48:37 -0700, Daniel Frey wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>>> Furthermore, the current portage doesn't require the revdep-rebuild |
| 5 |
>>> step because |
| 6 |
>>> of the @preserved-rebuild set creation. |
| 7 |
>> I beg to differ, portage still misses stuff more often than you think. I |
| 8 |
>> always run revdep-rebuild after an emerge. |
| 9 |
> I have a weekly system health check cron job that includes revdep-rebuild |
| 10 |
> -pi (hint to Alan: that's the correct way to have revdep-rebuild ignore |
| 11 |
> the results of previous runs). It rarely finds anything. There's still |
| 12 |
> the occasional glitch with preserved-libs, but I fons it works |
| 13 |
> ninety-lots % of the time, and it is far better than the "let it break |
| 14 |
> then try to fix it approach" of the days we needed to rely on |
| 15 |
> revdep-rebuild. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
I haven't ran revdep-rebuild in likely over a year. Just for giggles, I |
| 21 |
ran it a bit ago. The only thing it found was libreoffice. That's not |
| 22 |
exactly a critical package or anything. Given that, I don't think it |
| 23 |
really serves any point. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
I wonder if me having backtrack set to 100 helps with that? Of course, |
| 26 |
unlike poor Alan, I also have a sane approach to upgrading. I also run |
| 27 |
the latest non-9999 version of portage. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Dale |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
:-) :-) |
Archives