El sáb, 12-02-2011 a las 18:22 +0100, Martin Doucha escribió:
> Dne 12.2.2011 16:50, Pacho Ramos napsal(a):
> > Then, my idea would the following:
> >
> > Would be nice if I could tell portage to make compilation think
> > libglitz-glx.so.1 is not present in real system (maybe sandbox could
> > prevent its readability inside build environment), and then, I could run
> > "revdep-rebuild --library libglitz-glx.so.1" before removing glitz and
> > affected apps would not link to it, allowing me to safely remove glitz
> > later without having had  a broken system at any time.
> >
> > What do you think? Thanks
> 
> I think you want to update to portage-2.2 (you need to unmask it
> manually). It does exactly what you want in this case.
> 
> Regards,
> Martin Doucha
> 
> 

I am not sure if portage-2.2 would also cover this case: in this
example, the problem appears because of people uninstalling
*intentionally*  media-libs/glitz (as it's no longer needed)