Gentoo Archives: gentoo-user

From: Mick <michaelkintzios@×××××.com>
To: gentoo-user@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Gpgme oddity
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2017 10:44:17
Message-Id: 3233492.2n0295OAI2@dell_xps
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-user] Gpgme oddity by Dale
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

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature