[gentoo-user] Re: How serious is revdep-rebuild failure

[Harry Putnam]

Holly Bostick <motub@××××××.nl> writes:

[...] 

>> Harry responds:
>>
>> Ack, yes of course and it even warns you about that
>>
>> However having removed them I still get a huge list of stuff listed
>> as BROKEN
>
> Yes, well, that's what revdep-rebuild does-- finds broken stuff. It's
> doing its job-- what's the problem with that?

I think you may have read into that something I didn't mean.
The problem is that there is lots of broken stuff not that revdep
finds it.

I posted an incomplete output.  It needed pruning alright but I pruned
the wrong stuff.  Just posted a better output.

>> One of the first involves the same mjpeg package that isn't even
>> installed:
>>
>> broken /usr/bin/cinelerra (requires  libmjpegutils-1.6.so.0)

> Ummmm--- why do you feel that this is the "same package that isn't even
> installed"? You said that you have libmjpegutils installed, just not the
> same version that was attempting to be rebuilt before 1.8.0 installed,
> rather than the 1.6.2-r3 that was attempting to be rebuilt).

So then isn't that a package that IS NOT installed.  I mean a version
difference is what makes a package a different package ... right?

>  eix mjpegtools
> * media-video/mjpegtools
>      Available versions:  1.6.2-r4 ~1.8.0 ~1.8.0-r1
>      Installed:           1.6.2-r4
>      Homepage:            http://mjpeg.sourceforge.net/
>      Description:         Tools for MJPEG video
>
> equery files media-video/mjpegtools
> [ Searching for packages matching media-video/mjpegtools... ]
> * Contents of media-video/mjpegtools-1.6.2-r4:
>
> /usr/lib/libmjpegutils-1.6.so.0 -> libmjpegutils-1.6.so.0.2.2
>
> Now, obviously this is not the same version of mjpegtools that you have,
> but what it indicates is that the "file" libmjpegutils-1.6.so.0 is a
> symlink to whatever version of the actual library is installed by the
> package.
>
> I rather expect that what would happen if I were to upgrade this package
> is that the symlink itself would remain, but the target of the symlink
> would change.
>
> If this is in fact the case, two points:
>
> 1: your symlink seems to be broken;
> 2: the error you have listed does not say anything about what version of
> mjpegtools is installed or broken, so revdep-rebuild is not necessarily
> talking about the same version as previously,
>
>
> But better to go to the source:
>>
>> ================================== Full output of revdep-rebuild
>> (minus all config make stuff [sorry about control chars I forgot to
>> use -nc but have removed some]):
>>
>> Note it doesn't appear to say what pkg actually failed:
>>
>>
>> Evaluating package order... done. (/root/.revdep-rebuild.5_order)
>>
>> All prepared. Starting rebuild.. emerge --oneshot
>> =dev-php/mod_php-4.4.0 =dev-php/php-4.4.0 =media-libs/imlib-1.9.14-r3
>>  =kde-base/kdegraphics-3.4.1-r1 =media-gfx/imagemagick-6.2.5.4
>> =media-libs/libdv-0.102 =media-video/avifile-0.7.41.20041001-r1
>> =media-video/cinelerra-cvs-20050801 =media-video/transcode-0.6.14-r2
>>  =net-libs/libwww-5.4.0-r3 ^G.^G.^G.^G.^G.^G.^G.^G.^G.^G.
>>
>> ------8< [big snip] --------------------
>>
>> you have the following choices:
>>
>> - if emerge failed during the build, fix the problems and re-run
>> revdep-rebuild
>
> So apparently the rebuild failed.
>
> But first of all, I don't see mjpegtools being rebuilt in this list, so
> that is not the problem apparently (the problem is not that mjpegtools
> is not installed, but that the programs that depend on it are not linked
> against it, which is what revdep-rebuild is trying to fix by re-emerging
> them);
>
> ... and second of all, which package failed to emerge and why?

> Meaning, what was the error in whichever package failed to emerge?

I may have lost it or something but I made a cut and paste error on
the above and have since posted a better output.  I do have the entire
output and should perhaps post it online.
  http://www.jtan.com/~reader/vu_txt/display.shtml

Coming up shortly. (5min)

-- 
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list