| 1 |
Allan Gottlieb <gottlieb@×××.edu> wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On Mon, Sep 19 2011, Michael Schreckenbauer wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> > On Monday, 19. September 2011 10:20:25 Allan Gottlieb wrote: |
| 6 |
> >> On Mon, Sep 19 2011, Alan McKinnon wrote: |
| 7 |
> >> >> > revdep-rebuild checks everything, revdep-rebuild --library |
| 8 |
> >> >> > checks just some things. |
| 9 |
> >> >> > |
| 10 |
> >> >> > ebuilds sometimes issue messages to check just the libraries known |
| 11 |
> >> >> > to have been updated, but a full revdep-rebuild after an update |
| 12 |
> >> >> > will catch those anyway. |
| 13 |
> >> >> |
| 14 |
> >> >> Until recently I skipped the "--library" step exactly because I knew |
| 15 |
> >> >> revdep-rebuild will find and fix the broken packages after I delete |
| 16 |
> >> >> the old library. So, why bother with the --library step, right? |
| 17 |
> >> >> |
| 18 |
> >> >> However. A few weeks ago I got caught when I deleted one of those |
| 19 |
> >> >> obsolete libraries and only then did I find out that gcc is one of |
| 20 |
> >> >> the packages that depend on it :( |
| 21 |
> >> >> |
| 22 |
> >> >> I don't skip the --library step any more. |
| 23 |
> >> > |
| 24 |
> >> > That's odd behaviour, I wonder what caused the difference. |
| 25 |
> >> > |
| 26 |
> >> > Surely revdep-rebuild itself can't do this different just because you |
| 27 |
> >> > specified a library to compare? I wonder if that lib was maybe in the |
| 28 |
> >> > revdep-rebuild exclude list. |
| 29 |
> >> > |
| 30 |
> >> > I'd be interested to track it down for reference, do you remember the |
| 31 |
> >> > library involved? |
| 32 |
> >> |
| 33 |
> >> It occurs exactly in the case we are discussing libpng |
| 34 |
> >> |
| 35 |
> >> ajglap gottlieb # revdep-rebuild; revdep-rebuild --library |
| 36 |
> >> '/usr/lib64/libpng14.so.14' * Configuring search environment for |
| 37 |
> >> revdep-rebuild |
| 38 |
> >> |
| 39 |
> >> * Checking reverse dependencies |
| 40 |
> >> * Packages containing binaries and libraries broken by a package update |
| 41 |
> >> * will be emerged. |
| 42 |
> >> ... |
| 43 |
> >> * Checking reverse dependencies |
| 44 |
> >> * Packages containing binaries and libraries using |
| 45 |
> >> /usr/lib64/libpng14.so.14 * will be emerged. |
| 46 |
> > |
| 47 |
> > First one emerges *broken* packages. |
| 48 |
> > Second one emerge packages *using* png14 (not necessarily broken) |
| 49 |
> |
| 50 |
> OK. But the claim was that: if |
| 51 |
> revdep-rebuild |
| 52 |
> with no argument found nothing to build, then |
| 53 |
> revdep-rebuild --library <some-library> |
| 54 |
> will find nothing. |
| 55 |
> |
| 56 |
> This guarantee is apparently no long true as my example in another msg |
| 57 |
> illustrated. |
| 58 |
Will emerge @preserved-rebuild catch the second case here? |
| 59 |
|
| 60 |
|
| 61 |
-- |
| 62 |
Your life is like a penny. You're going to lose it. The question is: |
| 63 |
How do |
| 64 |
you spend it? |
| 65 |
|
| 66 |
John Covici |
| 67 |
covici@××××××××××.com |
Archives