| 1 |
Neil Bothwick wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sat, 8 Dec 2012 13:54:25 -0800, Grant wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> Got it. So @preserved-rebuild is meant to be a replacement for |
| 5 |
>> revdep-rebuild |
| 6 |
> No, it is a means of preventing the problems that revdep-rebuild fixes. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> If revdep-rebuild were a medicine, @preserved-rebuild would be a vaccine. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Which you choose to use depends on whether you prefer fixing broken |
| 11 |
> systems to avoiding them. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> revdep-rebuild is an external program created to deal with a shortcoming |
| 14 |
> in emerge, that shortcoming was the lack of @preserved-rebuild. There may |
| 15 |
> be times when @preserved-rebuild fails, although they are becoming |
| 16 |
> increasingly rare, so revdep-rebuild is still useful as a fallback, but |
| 17 |
> the main reason I run it from my weekly system check script is as a |
| 18 |
> sanity check. It rarely finds anything. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
That's been my experience too. I run @preserved-rebuild when it tells |
| 24 |
me to but revdep-rebuild rarely finds anything. Thing is, it has a time |
| 25 |
or two. It is best to run revdep-rebuild and be sure than not to and |
| 26 |
run the risk of not being able to boot or some other problem that bites |
| 27 |
you. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Sort of like a ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. ;-) |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Dale |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
:-) :-) |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words! |
Archives