1 |
Mark Knecht <markknecht@×××××.com> wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 1:41 PM, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@×××××.com> wrote: |
4 |
> > Apparently, though unproven, at 23:10 on Sunday 12 December 2010, |
5 |
> > covici@××××××××××.com did opine thusly: |
6 |
> > |
7 |
> >> Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@×××××.com> wrote: |
8 |
> >> > Apparently, though unproven, at 22:35 on Sunday 12 December 2010, |
9 |
> >> > |
10 |
> >> > covici@××××××××××.com did opine thusly: |
11 |
> >> > > Mark Knecht <markknecht@×××××.com> wrote: |
12 |
> >> > > > On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 10:48 AM, <covici@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
13 |
> >> > > > > I have a fair number of preserved-libs, but it will not run at all |
14 |
> >> > > > > and gives the rather strange message: |
15 |
> >> > > > > Calculating dependencies... done! |
16 |
> >> > > > > |
17 |
> >> > > > > emerge: there are no ebuilds to satisfy "dev-tex/mplib:0". |
18 |
> >> > > > > (dependency required by "@preserved-rebuild") |
19 |
> >> > > > > |
20 |
> >> > > > > Now I have no such package and an eix seems to indicate that there |
21 |
> >> > > > > is no such, so how do I get this rebuild going again? |
22 |
> >> > > > > |
23 |
> >> > > > > Thanks in advance for all your help. |
24 |
> >> > > > > |
25 |
> >> > > > > -- |
26 |
> >> > > > > Your life is like a penny. You're going to lose it. The question |
27 |
> >> > > > > is: How do |
28 |
> >> > > > > you spend it? |
29 |
> >> > > > > |
30 |
> >> > > > > John Covici |
31 |
> >> > > > > covici@××××××××××.com |
32 |
> >> > > > |
33 |
> >> > > > Probably searching for packages that depend on mplib, (equery) then |
34 |
> >> > > > emerge -C them (it's what I'd probably do - depends...) then |
35 |
> >> > > > re-emerge them if you still use them? Note that I'd go back to |
36 |
> >> > > > finding what members of the world file need all this stuff and |
37 |
> >> > > > emerge that with -DuN, maybe even doing a -depclean after the emerge |
38 |
> >> > > > -C. It's all a guess though. |
39 |
> >> > > > |
40 |
> >> > > > Seems like this sort of thing happens when a package gets dumped in |
41 |
> >> > > > an upgrade but somehow the ebuilds or package manager don't get |
42 |
> >> > > > updated or just don't work perfectly. |
43 |
> >> > > > |
44 |
> >> > > > Again, all a guess but I can usually figure it out looking at equery |
45 |
> >> > > > output, etc. |
46 |
> >> > > |
47 |
> >> > > Well, there was a package, but no ebuild, so I deleted the package and |
48 |
> >> > > its going, but someone broke something. I wish you could not delete an |
49 |
> >> > > ebuild if you have the package, or it would put it somewhere to prevent |
50 |
> >> > > this kind of thing. |
51 |
> >> > |
52 |
> >> > That will make portage store gigantic numbers of old and since upgraded |
53 |
> >> > versions just in case maybe you might need it perhaps. Sounds like a lot |
54 |
> >> > of pain for no gain. Sounds like exactly the kind of thing any decent |
55 |
> >> > dev will reject. |
56 |
> >> > |
57 |
> >> > Besides, you can always get the old ebuild back from the Attic, or you |
58 |
> >> > could copy it somewhere safe from /var/db/pkg/ before you delete it. |
59 |
> >> > |
60 |
> >> > Mark has the correct solution. mplib is not needed and was deleted. |
61 |
> >> > However, it's in preserved-rebuild as being used by something. In all |
62 |
> >> > likelyhood that something uses mplib purely optionally and you should |
63 |
> >> > just rebuild that something. You provided no output so no-one here knows |
64 |
> >> > how to fix your problem. |
65 |
> >> |
66 |
> >> There was no output, but what I sent and the only thing depended on |
67 |
> >> mplib was the package with no ebuild, so I guess its fixed. But |
68 |
> >> something seems wrong here that you should have a package and the ebuild |
69 |
> >> would go away like that. I am not sure of the best solution. |
70 |
> > |
71 |
> > But you *don't* have the package, or it didn't uninstall cleanly. It's not in |
72 |
> > the tree, it's not in eix, so it no longer exists. There would have been at |
73 |
> > least 30 days notice in $PORTDIR/profiles/package.mask that it was going away, |
74 |
> > and emerge gives output that there is a package present without an ebuild. |
75 |
> > |
76 |
> > Or maybe you deleted the ebuild yourself out of a local overlay. |
77 |
> > |
78 |
> > There's lots of ways this can happen. preserved-rebuild tracks that some part |
79 |
> > of mplib is bieng used somehow, and it told you. Now you as the human being |
80 |
> > get to decide how to proceed because the software cannot decide for you. |
81 |
> > |
82 |
> > The software is working as designed. What else did you expect it to do? |
83 |
> > |
84 |
> > One thing that is NOT a solution is to not delete the ebuild. That results in |
85 |
> > your tree being out of sync with upstream. That is not allowed. |
86 |
> |
87 |
> covici, |
88 |
> It strikes me that maybe I wasn't totally clear about this sort of fix. My bad. |
89 |
> |
90 |
> I _think_ that if you had a totally up to date system and a recent set |
91 |
> of ebuilds on the system then likely none of them would depend on |
92 |
> mplib. (Assuming it's been dropped for some reason.) |
93 |
> |
94 |
> The issue you need to sort of get your head around is that you are |
95 |
> searching from some _older_, currently installed package that depends |
96 |
> on this dropped library. Once you know the name of that package, if |
97 |
> you emerge -C it then the system no longer requires it and complaints |
98 |
> should go away. Assuming they do then I would likely do an emerge -p |
99 |
> --depclean, which gets the system clean without the program you want, |
100 |
> then I would emerge the newest version of that program which doesn't |
101 |
> require mplib. |
102 |
> |
103 |
> Again, it's sort of an Easter Egg Hunt getting to all the older |
104 |
> programs that required the library that's been removed. There may be |
105 |
> more than one program that used it. |
106 |
> |
107 |
> One other possibility, I think, is that everything is OK with your |
108 |
> programs but some mplib executable (possibly a *.so file or something) |
109 |
> was left laying around and now revdep-rebuild is complaining that it |
110 |
> cannot fix it. That one is relatively easy as you can search, using |
111 |
> equery, for the package that provided it and if it's not on the system |
112 |
> then just delete the *.so that it's complaining about. |
113 |
> |
114 |
> Whatever, do make sure that you double check the system with |
115 |
> revdep-rebuild and emerge -pvDuN @world at the end to make sure your |
116 |
> clean. |
117 |
> |
118 |
> Hope that helps, |
119 |
|
120 |
I think I wound up doing what you said -- there was only one package and |
121 |
that had no ebuild, but portage managed to unmerge it anyway and I did a |
122 |
full update after that, so all should be working now. |
123 |
|
124 |
Thanks. |
125 |
|
126 |
-- |
127 |
Your life is like a penny. You're going to lose it. The question is: |
128 |
How do |
129 |
you spend it? |
130 |
|
131 |
John Covici |
132 |
covici@××××××××××.com |