1 |
On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 09:32:46 -0500, |
2 |
Alan McKinnon wrote: |
3 |
> |
4 |
> On 30/01/2017 13:57, John Covici wrote: |
5 |
> > On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 03:37:01 -0500, |
6 |
> > Tuomo Hartikainen wrote: |
7 |
> >> |
8 |
> >> Hi John, |
9 |
> >> |
10 |
> >> On 2017-01-29 05:11, John Covici wrote: |
11 |
> >>> Hi. I am having a couple of preserved rebuild problems which I have |
12 |
> >>> no idea how to fix. |
13 |
> >>> |
14 |
> >>> The first one is like this: |
15 |
> >>>>>> package: sys-libs/binutils-libs-2.27 |
16 |
> >>> * - /usr/lib64/libbfd-2.25.1.so |
17 |
> >>> * used by |
18 |
> >>> /usr/lib64/binutils/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/2.25.1/libopcodes-2.25.1.so |
19 |
> >>> (sys-devel/binutils-2.25.1-r1) |
20 |
> >> |
21 |
> >> I had this same loop last week, and I found this[1] forum thread |
22 |
> >> helpful. Apparently on my and janos666's systems the |
23 |
> >> /usr/lib64/libbfd-2.25.1.so library was erroneously left behind by a |
24 |
> >> previous depclean. If you dare, first make sure the library is not owned |
25 |
> >> by any current package: `equery b /usr/lib64/libbfd-2.25.1.so`. If it's |
26 |
> >> not, removing the file manually should do the trick. |
27 |
> >> |
28 |
> >> Remember to take precautions though, khayyam suggests binpkg but I just |
29 |
> >> took a copy of that library so I could put it back with a rescue system |
30 |
> >> if binutils broke. |
31 |
> >> |
32 |
> >> [1]: https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-1042488-start-0.html |
33 |
> > |
34 |
> > Unfortunately the file is owned by |
35 |
> > sys-libs/binutils-libs-2.27 |
36 |
> > |
37 |
> > There is a 2.25 version as well. Now in the binutils itself I have |
38 |
> > several versions at the same time. |
39 |
> > But there is no other version of sys-libs/binutils-libs but the 2.27. |
40 |
> > |
41 |
> > |
42 |
> |
43 |
> |
44 |
> are you saying that you only have one version of binutils installed |
45 |
> (2.27)? That seems to be the norm nowadays, the other slots are probably |
46 |
> for "old stuff" |
47 |
> |
48 |
> IUf you have other versions' cruft still lying around in |
49 |
> /usr/lib64/binutils/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/, then move that junk out the |
50 |
> way and try again. It's very likely dynamic runtime nonsense that |
51 |
> depclean didn't know about |
52 |
|
53 |
I have |
54 |
[I] sys-devel/binutils |
55 |
Available versions: |
56 |
(2.25.1) 2.25.1-r1 |
57 |
(2.26.1) (~)2.26.1 |
58 |
(2.27) (~)2.27 |
59 |
(git) **9999 |
60 |
{cxx multitarget nls static-libs test |
61 |
vanilla zlib} |
62 |
Installed versions: |
63 |
2.25.1-r1(2.25.1)(01:06:59 AM |
64 |
01/11/2017)(cxx nls zlib |
65 |
-multitarget -static-libs -test |
66 |
-vanilla) 2.26.1(2.26.1)(07:16:43 |
67 |
AM 12/27/2016)(cxx nls |
68 |
-multitarget -static-libs -test |
69 |
-vanilla) 2.27(2.27)(07:23:40 AM |
70 |
12/27/2016)(cxx nls -multitarget |
71 |
-static-libs -test -vanilla) |
72 |
|
73 |
But only one version of sys-libs/bin-utils-libs |
74 |
|
75 |
But I found binutils-config and just switched from 2.25-r1 to 2.27, so |
76 |
I will see what happens. |
77 |
So, after removing the old versions of binutils, the preserved-rebuild |
78 |
problem went away! |
79 |
|
80 |
Thanks all for all your help on that . Now I have to somehow deal |
81 |
with the gst-plugins-ffmpeg. |
82 |
|
83 |
-- |
84 |
Your life is like a penny. You're going to lose it. The question is: |
85 |
How do |
86 |
you spend it? |
87 |
|
88 |
John Covici |
89 |
covici@××××××××××.com |