| 1 |
On 2022-08-04, Neil Bothwick <neil@××××××××××.uk> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, 4 Aug 2022 21:49:59 -0000 (UTC), Grant Edwards wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> emerge --depeclean --ask |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
>> That removed a couple wayland packages (yay! I didn't really want |
| 7 |
>> wayland). Then it warned me |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
>> !!! existing preserved libs: |
| 10 |
>> >>> package: dev-libs/wayland-1.21.0 |
| 11 |
>> * - /usr/lib64/libwayland-client.so.0 |
| 12 |
>> * - /usr/lib64/libwayland-client.so.0.21.0 |
| 13 |
>> * used by /opt/google/chrome/libGLESv2.so |
| 14 |
>> (www-client/google-chrome-104.0.5112.79) Use emerge @preserved-rebuild |
| 15 |
>> to rebuild packages using these libraries |
| 16 |
>> |
| 17 |
>> I do as instructed and run 'emerge @preserved-rebuild' and it |
| 18 |
>> reinstalls chrome. |
| 19 |
>> |
| 20 |
>> But a subsequent emerge --depeclean --ask again produces the same |
| 21 |
>> warnings about wayland libraries that have been preserved. |
| 22 |
>> |
| 23 |
>> Are the dependencies for chrome broken? |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> chrome is a binary package, unlike chromium, so rebuilding will not change |
| 26 |
> the libraries it depends on. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Right. I didn't expect that it would. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
> It sounds like those wayland packages should not have been |
| 31 |
> depcleaned and are a requirement for chrome. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
I'm pretty sure that wayland was originally installed a few weeks ago |
| 34 |
to satisfy a dependency of chrome that had been newly added (and now |
| 35 |
apparently removed). |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
This bug might be related: |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
https://bugs.gentoo.org/858191 |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
It seems to mostly be a debate over whether wayland is really required |
| 42 |
for the chrome binary package. Removing wayland reportedly breaks |
| 43 |
webGL, sometimes, for some people, depending on how chrome is invoked. |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
If I read that issue's history correctly... |
Archives