| 1 |
On Thu, 15 Aug 2013 10:16:25 +0200 |
| 2 |
Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On 15/08/2013 09:30, Nikos Chantziaras wrote: |
| 5 |
> > When running: |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > emerge @preserved-rebuild |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > and nothing is found that needs a rebuild, but: |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > revdep-rebuild -i |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> > does find something, should it be considered a bug with the |
| 14 |
> > preserved-rebuild mechanism and be reported, or is this expected to |
| 15 |
> > happen from to time? |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> The latter, it happens from time to time. I see it here about once |
| 18 |
> every 2 months or so (i.e. seldom). I suppose this is the best we can |
| 19 |
> expect, seeing as how it all works: |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> @preserved-rebuild tries to remember everything that uses everything |
| 22 |
> and detect changes, this will never be 100%, |
| 23 |
> revdep-rebuild actively looks for brokenness and still sometimes gets |
| 24 |
> it wrong (dynamic plugin modules anyone?) |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> The specifics depend on the exact package. Maybe also file a bug so |
| 27 |
> Zac can look it over just in case there in a useful tweak he can make |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
I thought the use of subslots was supposed to make revdep-rebuild |
| 30 |
obsolete someday. |
Archives