From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE39A13877A for ; Sun, 20 Jul 2014 15:09:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id DC312E0A87; Sun, 20 Jul 2014 15:09:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 01536E0A83 for ; Sun, 20 Jul 2014 15:09:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ie0-f173.google.com (mail-ie0-f173.google.com [209.85.223.173]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: floppym) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 14A0C34020A for ; Sun, 20 Jul 2014 15:09:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ie0-f173.google.com with SMTP id tr6so6115181ieb.32 for ; Sun, 20 Jul 2014 08:09:34 -0700 (PDT) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.66.133 with SMTP id f5mr12114922igt.38.1405868973987; Sun, 20 Jul 2014 08:09:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.64.142.17 with HTTP; Sun, 20 Jul 2014 08:09:33 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20140720124749.4edaf889@shanghai.paradoxon.rec> References: <20140720124749.4edaf889@shanghai.paradoxon.rec> Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2014 11:09:33 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Need help with sys-fs/e2fsprogs-1.42.11 build failure From: Mike Gilbert To: Gentoo Dev Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Archives-Salt: f35511f4-5e9e-47a0-bbcb-e29904a9c0eb X-Archives-Hash: 0fd68e51e2ac4d496e4e1695a659afdd On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 6:47 AM, Lars Wendler wrote: > Hi guys, > > I just add e2fsprogs{,-libs}-1.42.11 Is there some reason that we continue to maintain these as two separate packages? It seems like the e2fsprogs ebuild could build/install both the binaries and the libraries, and that would probably prevent weird failures like this one. I see this in README.subset: