| 1 |
In this specific case, "Broken" means "Binary Package". Binary |
| 2 |
packages are distributed with all kinds of libraries linked to so that |
| 3 |
they can minimize the amount of binary packages they need to maintain |
| 4 |
(e.g. they don't need an eclipse-gnome and an eclipse-nognome |
| 5 |
package). The program will ideally run as if those features were |
| 6 |
disabled at compile time, but usually does spit out a few errors on |
| 7 |
console about missing libraries. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Revdep wanting to rebuild binary packages everytime is a known issue, |
| 10 |
and in newer (still masked?) versions there is a specific directory |
| 11 |
omission setting to tell it to ignore /opt, and anywhere else there |
| 12 |
may be binary packages. If it is still masked as I think, then you |
| 13 |
could just $EDITOR `which revdep-rebuild` and take out /opt from the |
| 14 |
SEARCH_DIRS variable. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Anyway, quick answer, No, your packages are not broken, so no worries. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
On 7/6/05, Dave Nebinger <dnebinger@××××.com> wrote: |
| 19 |
> On a run of revdep-rebuild I get the following output: |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> butthead ~ # revdep-rebuild -p |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> Checking reverse dependencies... |
| 24 |
> Packages containing binaries and libraries broken by any package update, |
| 25 |
> will be recompiled. |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> Collecting system binaries and libraries... done. |
| 28 |
> (/root/.revdep-rebuild.1_files) |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> Collecting complete LD_LIBRARY_PATH... done. |
| 31 |
> (/root/.revdep-rebuild.2_ldpath) |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> Checking dynamic linking consistency... |
| 34 |
> broken |
| 35 |
> /opt/OpenOffice.org/program/python-core-2.2.2/lib/lib-dynload/_tkinter.so |
| 36 |
> (requires libtk8.4.so libtcl8.4.so) |
| 37 |
> broken |
| 38 |
> /opt/eclipse/plugins/org.eclipse.swt.gtk_3.0.1/os/linux/x86/libswt-gnome-gtk |
| 39 |
> -3063.so (requires libgnomeui-2.so.0 libbonoboui-2.so.0 |
| 40 |
> libgnomecanvas-2.so.0 libgnome-2.so.0 libbonobo-2.so.0 libgconf-2.so.4 |
| 41 |
> libgnomevfs-2.so.0 libbonobo-activation.so.4 libORBit-2.so.0 liblinc.so.1) |
| 42 |
> broken /opt/firefox/components/libmozgnome.so (requires libgconf-2.so.4 |
| 43 |
> libORBit-2.so.0 liblinc.so.1 libgnomevfs-2.so.0 libbonobo-activation.so.4 |
| 44 |
> libgnome-2.so.0 libbonobo-2.so.0) |
| 45 |
> broken /opt/firefox/components/libnkgnomevfs.so (requires |
| 46 |
> libgnomevfs-2.so.0 libbonobo-activation.so.4 libORBit-2.so.0 liblinc.so.1) |
| 47 |
> done. |
| 48 |
> (/root/.revdep-rebuild.3_rebuild) |
| 49 |
> |
| 50 |
> Assigning files to ebuilds... done. |
| 51 |
> (/root/.revdep-rebuild.4_ebuilds) |
| 52 |
> |
| 53 |
> Evaluating package order... done. |
| 54 |
> (/root/.revdep-rebuild.5_order) |
| 55 |
> |
| 56 |
> Dynamic linking on your system is consistent... All done. |
| 57 |
> |
| 58 |
> |
| 59 |
> Now the reason for 'broken' is that I don't have gnome installed, that much |
| 60 |
> I understand. And I'm cool with the fact that revdep-rebuild didn't try to |
| 61 |
> install gnome even though these are marked as broken. |
| 62 |
> |
| 63 |
> The question is, I guess, whether 'broken' has some other meaning than what |
| 64 |
> I'm thinking, and do I need to be worried? |
| 65 |
> |
| 66 |
> |
| 67 |
> |
| 68 |
> -- |
| 69 |
> gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
| 70 |
> |
| 71 |
> |
| 72 |
|
| 73 |
-- |
| 74 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
Archives