| 1 |
On 05/29/2016 02:20 AM, Dale wrote: |
| 2 |
> Neil Bothwick wrote: |
| 3 |
>> I have a weekly system health check cron job that includes revdep-rebuild |
| 4 |
>> -pi (hint to Alan: that's the correct way to have revdep-rebuild ignore |
| 5 |
>> the results of previous runs). It rarely finds anything. There's still |
| 6 |
>> the occasional glitch with preserved-libs, but I fons it works |
| 7 |
>> ninety-lots % of the time, and it is far better than the "let it break |
| 8 |
>> then try to fix it approach" of the days we needed to rely on |
| 9 |
>> revdep-rebuild. |
| 10 |
>> |
| 11 |
>> |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> I haven't ran revdep-rebuild in likely over a year. Just for giggles, I |
| 15 |
> ran it a bit ago. The only thing it found was libreoffice. That's not |
| 16 |
> exactly a critical package or anything. Given that, I don't think it |
| 17 |
> really serves any point. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> I wonder if me having backtrack set to 100 helps with that? Of course, |
| 20 |
> unlike poor Alan, I also have a sane approach to upgrading. I also run |
| 21 |
> the latest non-9999 version of portage. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> Dale |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> :-) :-) |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
I should correct myself, I always run revdep-rebuild after a depclean. |
| 30 |
The point it, portage doesn't catch everything, regardless of its |
| 31 |
importance or not. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Dan |
Archives