1 |
On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 03:37:01 -0500, |
2 |
Tuomo Hartikainen wrote: |
3 |
> |
4 |
> Hi John, |
5 |
> |
6 |
> On 2017-01-29 05:11, John Covici wrote: |
7 |
> > Hi. I am having a couple of preserved rebuild problems which I have |
8 |
> > no idea how to fix. |
9 |
> > |
10 |
> > The first one is like this: |
11 |
> > >>> package: sys-libs/binutils-libs-2.27 |
12 |
> > * - /usr/lib64/libbfd-2.25.1.so |
13 |
> > * used by |
14 |
> > /usr/lib64/binutils/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/2.25.1/libopcodes-2.25.1.so |
15 |
> > (sys-devel/binutils-2.25.1-r1) |
16 |
> |
17 |
> I had this same loop last week, and I found this[1] forum thread |
18 |
> helpful. Apparently on my and janos666's systems the |
19 |
> /usr/lib64/libbfd-2.25.1.so library was erroneously left behind by a |
20 |
> previous depclean. If you dare, first make sure the library is not owned |
21 |
> by any current package: `equery b /usr/lib64/libbfd-2.25.1.so`. If it's |
22 |
> not, removing the file manually should do the trick. |
23 |
> |
24 |
> Remember to take precautions though, khayyam suggests binpkg but I just |
25 |
> took a copy of that library so I could put it back with a rescue system |
26 |
> if binutils broke. |
27 |
> |
28 |
> [1]: https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-1042488-start-0.html |
29 |
|
30 |
Unfortunately the file is owned by |
31 |
sys-libs/binutils-libs-2.27 |
32 |
|
33 |
There is a 2.25 version as well. Now in the binutils itself I have |
34 |
several versions at the same time. |
35 |
But there is no other version of sys-libs/binutils-libs but the 2.27. |
36 |
|
37 |
|
38 |
-- |
39 |
Your life is like a penny. You're going to lose it. The question is: |
40 |
How do |
41 |
you spend it? |
42 |
|
43 |
John Covici |
44 |
covici@××××××××××.com |