| 1 |
On Sunday 05 Mar 2017 03:28:46 Dale wrote: |
| 2 |
> Mick wrote: |
| 3 |
> > make[2]: *** No rule to make target '/usr/lib64/libgpgme-pthread.so' |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> Roach report filed here: |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=600510 |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> May want to follow that or figure out if there is a workaround. I think |
| 10 |
> based on a couple comments, a older package works. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Dale |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> :-) :-) |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Thank you both. I must remember to search bugzilla before I post, but like |
| 17 |
others I thought if a package is released as stable, then dependent packages |
| 18 |
would have been tested as part of @preserved-rebuild at least. Perhaps this |
| 19 |
box with no-multilib is an edge case, because other boxen I've updated did not |
| 20 |
have this problem. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
The workaround I used is to symlink /usr/lib64/libgpgme-pthread.so to |
| 23 |
libgpgme.so as suggested in the bug report. Masking the latest gpgme would |
| 24 |
also work, but then I'll be working against portage than with it. Given that |
| 25 |
a lot of packages depend on gpgme and they are still in the tree as KDE-4, |
| 26 |
perhaps gpgme should not have been marked stable, or at least it could have |
| 27 |
been released with an enotice to advice users how to work around these bugs. |
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
Regards, |
| 30 |
Mick |
Archives