1 |
On 9/12/07, Iain Buchanan <iaindb@××××××××××××.au> wrote: |
2 |
> On Wed, 2007-09-12 at 18:06 -0700, Mark Knecht wrote: |
3 |
> |
4 |
> > Sorry. I should have started that a number of the failures have come |
5 |
> > while doing revdep-rebuild. One seemingly large problem is that |
6 |
> > revdep-rebuild wants to rebuild packages that are no longer in portage |
7 |
> > so you have to remove those from the rebuild or attempt to change |
8 |
> > revision numbers by hand on the fly in the long command that |
9 |
> > revdep-rebuild -p creates. That's been a mess and not the way I know |
10 |
> > the portage developers want me to maintain the system. |
11 |
> |
12 |
> -X, -X, again I say -X! |
13 |
> |
14 |
> with ~x86 revdep-rebuild, this behaviour is default, but most likely |
15 |
> with your revdep-rebuild, you can specify -X to get the latest version |
16 |
> of the packages. Otherwise it will try and use the currently installed |
17 |
> version, which isn't what you want when in the middle of a large |
18 |
> upgrade! |
19 |
> |
20 |
> HTH, |
21 |
> -- |
22 |
> Iain Buchanan <iaindb at netspace dot net dot au> |
23 |
> |
24 |
|
25 |
That's very interesting. What about slotting issues? What if it's the |
26 |
old version in a slot that needs to be rebuilt? (FYI - I don't really |
27 |
understand slotting that much since I don't program. I've guessed it's |
28 |
because some code needs old libraries, etc., and somehow slotting |
29 |
takes care of that.) Does -X install the latest version in the |
30 |
specific slot? |
31 |
|
32 |
Anyway, I've wondered at times about just removing all the specific |
33 |
revision numbers but I'm wary of going beyond my comfort zone and then |
34 |
ending up in a state that's more difficult to fix. |
35 |
|
36 |
Maybe the revdep-rebuild guys should (could?) include -X if it's the |
37 |
right thing to do? |
38 |
|
39 |
Thanks for the info. |
40 |
|
41 |
- Mark |
42 |
-- |
43 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |