[gentoo-user] can fix preserved-rebuild ...

[gentoo-user] can fix preserved-rebuild ...

[William Kenworthy]

After each update, these appear, and for libusb, the number slowly
increases (up to 185 now).  so far I have done the suggested "emerge
@preserved-rebuild", plus tried rebuilding every package mentioned but
after building, there is no change ...

!!! existing preserved libs:
>>> package: dev-libs/libusb-0.1.12-r5
 *  - /lib/libusb.so
 *      used by /lib/udev/check-mtp-device (media-libs/libgphoto2-2.4.3)
 *      used by /usr/bin/dfutool (net-wireless/bluez-utils-3.36)
 *      used by /usr/bin/evolution (mail-client/evolution-2.26.2)
 *      used by 185 other files
>>> package: x11-libs/libXaw-1.0.5
 *  - /usr/lib/libXaw.so.8
 *  - /usr/lib/libXaw8.so
 *  - /usr/lib/libXaw8.so.8
 *  - /usr/lib/libXaw8.so.8.0.0
 *      used by /usr/bin/xgpsspeed (sci-geosciences/gpsd-2.38)
Use emerge @preserved-rebuild to rebuild packages using these libraries
rattus ~ # 


-- 
William Kenworthy <billk@iinet.net.au>
Home in Perth!

[gentoo-user] Re: can fix preserved-rebuild ...

[walt]

William Kenworthy wrote:
> After each update, these appear, and for libusb, the number slowly
> increases (up to 185 now).  so far I have done the suggested "emerge
> @preserved-rebuild", plus tried rebuilding every package mentioned but
> after building, there is no change ...
>
> !!! existing preserved libs:
>>>> package: dev-libs/libusb-0.1.12-r5
>   *  - /lib/libusb.so
>   *      used by /lib/udev/check-mtp-device (media-libs/libgphoto2-2.4.3)
>   *      used by /usr/bin/dfutool (net-wireless/bluez-utils-3.36)
>   *      used by /usr/bin/evolution (mail-client/evolution-2.26.2)
>   *      used by 185 other files
>>>> package: x11-libs/libXaw-1.0.5
>   *  - /usr/lib/libXaw.so.8
>   *  - /usr/lib/libXaw8.so
>   *  - /usr/lib/libXaw8.so.8
>   *  - /usr/lib/libXaw8.so.8.0.0
>   *      used by /usr/bin/xgpsspeed (sci-geosciences/gpsd-2.38)
> Use emerge @preserved-rebuild to rebuild packages using these libraries
> rattus ~ #

Are you using an unstable version of gentoo, e.g. ~x86 or ~amd64?  The
only reason I know of for 'preserving' an old version is if there is also
a newer one, i.e. libusb-1.0.1, which is a ~ version.

On my ~amd64 machine I had both libusb-0.1.12-r5 and libusb-1.0.1.
I just deleted the 0.1.12 and revdep-rebuild found and rebuilt usbutils,
hal, and sane-backends with no problems, so there seems to be no reason
to have the old version unless you perhaps have the new version masked
on your machine for some reason?

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: can fix preserved-rebuild ...

[Alan McKinnon]

On Saturday 06 June 2009 18:23:26 walt wrote:
> William Kenworthy wrote:
> > After each update, these appear, and for libusb, the number slowly
> > increases (up to 185 now).  so far I have done the suggested "emerge
> > @preserved-rebuild", plus tried rebuilding every package mentioned but
> > after building, there is no change ...
> >
> > !!! existing preserved libs:
> >>>> package: dev-libs/libusb-0.1.12-r5
> >
> >   *  - /lib/libusb.so
> >   *      used by /lib/udev/check-mtp-device (media-libs/libgphoto2-2.4.3)
> >   *      used by /usr/bin/dfutool (net-wireless/bluez-utils-3.36)
> >   *      used by /usr/bin/evolution (mail-client/evolution-2.26.2)
> >   *      used by 185 other files
> >
> >>>> package: x11-libs/libXaw-1.0.5
> >
> >   *  - /usr/lib/libXaw.so.8
> >   *  - /usr/lib/libXaw8.so
> >   *  - /usr/lib/libXaw8.so.8
> >   *  - /usr/lib/libXaw8.so.8.0.0
> >   *      used by /usr/bin/xgpsspeed (sci-geosciences/gpsd-2.38)
> > Use emerge @preserved-rebuild to rebuild packages using these libraries
> > rattus ~ #
>
> Are you using an unstable version of gentoo, e.g. ~x86 or ~amd64?  The
> only reason I know of for 'preserving' an old version is if there is also
> a newer one, i.e. libusb-1.0.1, which is a ~ version.
>
> On my ~amd64 machine I had both libusb-0.1.12-r5 and libusb-1.0.1.
> I just deleted the 0.1.12 and revdep-rebuild found and rebuilt usbutils,
> hal, and sane-backends with no problems, so there seems to be no reason
> to have the old version unless you perhaps have the new version masked
> on your machine for some reason?

Your assessment of the problem is incorrect. preserved-rebuild happens when 
you upgrade a package which other packages link to and causes brokenness. When 
the "used by" package is rebuilt, there is no need for the old live version to 
be kept (it's only consumers no longer do so) so it is unmerged.

Think of it this way:
revdep-rebuild finds broken packages after the fact when they are already 
broken.
preserved-rebuild detects those problems before they occur and takes measure 
to keep the system working meanwhile.

You will notice that after running "emerge @preserved-rebuild", revdep-rebuild 
almost invariably returns null results.

As for the OP, I can only guess what might be causing this. Let's start with 
obvious stuff:

1. Is portage the latest version for your arch?
2. What does revdep-rebuild return?
3. What is your arch, and is it a mixture of stable and ~?


-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

[gentoo-user] Re: can fix preserved-rebuild ...

[walt]

Alan McKinnon wrote:

> ...
> You will notice that after running "emerge @preserved-rebuild", revdep-rebuild
> almost invariably returns null results...

I know I've used the @preserved-rebuild target in the past, but now:

#emerge @preserved-rebuild
!!! '@preserved-rebuild' is not a valid package atom.
!!! Please check ebuild(5) for full details.

Would it work if I had any 'preserved' packages on the machine?

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: can fix preserved-rebuild ...

[Alan McKinnon]

On Saturday 06 June 2009 23:10:40 walt wrote:
> Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > ...
> > You will notice that after running "emerge @preserved-rebuild",
> > revdep-rebuild almost invariably returns null results...
>
> I know I've used the @preserved-rebuild target in the past, but now:
>
> #emerge @preserved-rebuild
> !!! '@preserved-rebuild' is not a valid package atom.

That looks like a portage version that does not support sets - it doesn't seem 
to know what '@' means.

Did you downgrade portage?


> !!! Please check ebuild(5) for full details.
>
> Would it work if I had any 'preserved' packages on the machine?

If the set is empty, the error is something along the lines of "set has no 
members" or words to that effect


-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: can fix preserved-rebuild ...

[Dale]

Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On Saturday 06 June 2009 23:10:40 walt wrote:
>   
>> Alan McKinnon wrote:
>>     
>>> ...
>>> You will notice that after running "emerge @preserved-rebuild",
>>> revdep-rebuild almost invariably returns null results...
>>>       
>> I know I've used the @preserved-rebuild target in the past, but now:
>>
>> #emerge @preserved-rebuild
>> !!! '@preserved-rebuild' is not a valid package atom.
>>     
>
> That looks like a portage version that does not support sets - it doesn't seem 
> to know what '@' means.
>
> Did you downgrade portage?
>   

Why not post what version of portage you are using?  emerge --info
should do that.

>
>   
>> !!! Please check ebuild(5) for full details.
>>
>> Would it work if I had any 'preserved' packages on the machine?
>>     
>
> If the set is empty, the error is something along the lines of "set has no 
> members" or words to that effect
>
>
>   

Looks something like this:

root@smoker / # emerge @preserved-rebuild
emerge: 'preserved-rebuild' is an empty set
emerge: no targets left after set expansion
root@smoker / #

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: can fix preserved-rebuild ...

[William Kenworthy]

On Sat, 2009-06-06 at 19:23 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On Saturday 06 June 2009 18:23:26 walt wrote:
> > William Kenworthy wrote:
> > > After each update, these appear, and for libusb, the number slowly
> > > increases (up to 185 now).  so far I have done the suggested "emerge
> > > @preserved-rebuild", plus tried rebuilding every package mentioned but
> > > after building, there is no change ...
> > >
> > > !!! existing preserved libs:
> > >>>> package: dev-libs/libusb-0.1.12-r5
> > >
> > >   *  - /lib/libusb.so
> > >   *      used by /lib/udev/check-mtp-device (media-libs/libgphoto2-2.4.3)
> > >   *      used by /usr/bin/dfutool (net-wireless/bluez-utils-3.36)
> > >   *      used by /usr/bin/evolution (mail-client/evolution-2.26.2)
> > >   *      used by 185 other files
> > >
> > >>>> package: x11-libs/libXaw-1.0.5
> > >
> > >   *  - /usr/lib/libXaw.so.8
> > >   *  - /usr/lib/libXaw8.so
> > >   *  - /usr/lib/libXaw8.so.8
> > >   *  - /usr/lib/libXaw8.so.8.0.0
> > >   *      used by /usr/bin/xgpsspeed (sci-geosciences/gpsd-2.38)
> > > Use emerge @preserved-rebuild to rebuild packages using these libraries
> > > rattus ~ #
> >
> > Are you using an unstable version of gentoo, e.g. ~x86 or ~amd64?  The
> > only reason I know of for 'preserving' an old version is if there is also
> > a newer one, i.e. libusb-1.0.1, which is a ~ version.
> >
rattus ~ # equery l libusb
 * Searching for libusb ...
 * installed packages:
[I--] [  ] dev-libs/libusb-0.1.12-r5 (0)
rattus ~ #

> > ...
> 
> As for the OP, I can only guess what might be causing this. Let's start with 
> obvious stuff:
> 
> 1. Is portage the latest version for your arch?
> 2. What does revdep-rebuild return?
> 3. What is your arch, and is it a mixture of stable and ~?

The system is quite a few years old - the original install was ~2000,
and has quite a few hardware upgrades/rebuilds in between.  Current (for
at least a couple of years) cpu is amd athlon barton 2500+.

Software is a mix of stable, ~x86 and pinned (mostly particular ~x86 at
the time) working versions to avoid some of the upgrade treadmill.

rattus ~ # esearch portage
[ Results for search key : portage ]
[ Applications found : 5 ]

...

*  app-portage/portage-utils
      Latest version available: 0.1.29
      Latest version installed: 0.1.29
      Size of downloaded files: 77 kB
      Homepage:    http://www.gentoo.org/
      Description: small and fast portage helper tools written in C
      License:     GPL-2

*  sys-apps/portage
      Latest version available: 2.1.6.13
      Latest version installed: 2.2_rc15
      Size of downloaded files: 732 kB
      Homepage:    http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/portage/index.xml
      Description: Portage is the package management and distribution
system for Gentoo
      License:     GPL-2


rattus ~ # 

I think I had installed 2.2_rc15, and then that stupid forced downgrade
because someone wanted a version tested came in - I'll try sorting out
the portage version first as that looks like a possible culprit.

BillK


-- 
William Kenworthy <billk@iinet.net.au>
Home in Perth!

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: can fix preserved-rebuild ...

[Alan McKinnon]

On Sunday 07 June 2009 03:28:21 William Kenworthy wrote:

> > As for the OP, I can only guess what might be causing this. Let's start
> > with obvious stuff:
> >
> > 1. Is portage the latest version for your arch?
> > 2. What does revdep-rebuild return?
> > 3. What is your arch, and is it a mixture of stable and ~?
>
> The system is quite a few years old - the original install was ~2000,
> and has quite a few hardware upgrades/rebuilds in between.  Current (for
> at least a couple of years) cpu is amd athlon barton 2500+.
>
> Software is a mix of stable, ~x86 and pinned (mostly particular ~x86 at
> the time) working versions to avoid some of the upgrade treadmill.

Your libusb is currently latest, your portage-utils and portage are not.

I honestly think that debugging this will be an exercise in futility unless 
you can find a reference somewhere that says which versions of which portage 
tools are incompatible with which other ones, and why...

I'm also not sure anymore about which portage version was first to support 
sets. What I did was blow my top at the forced downgrade of portage at Zac's 
whim, and unmasked portage. Lots of troubles immediately and at once went away 
when I did this.

I'd suggest you switch to ~arch and tolerate the upgrade treadmill. A lot of 
that is packages that are rapidly and often changing. If you sync and upgrade 
once a week or fortnight, you'll find you upgrade package X just once, not 
several times during that period.

-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

[gentoo-user] Re: can fix preserved-rebuild ...

[walt]

Alan McKinnon wrote:
> ...
> I'm also not sure anymore about which portage version was first to support
> sets. What I did was blow my top at the forced downgrade of portage at Zac's
> whim, and unmasked portage. Lots of troubles immediately and at once went away
> when I did this...

Maybe that's why I remember using @preserved-rebuild once or maybe twice.
I'm running the same portage now on x86, ~x86, and ~amd64, i.e. 2.1.6.13,
which apparently doesn't know about sets.  portage-2.2_rc33 is masked on
my profiles.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: can fix preserved-rebuild ...

[Alan McKinnon]

On Sunday 07 June 2009 17:21:20 walt wrote:
> Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > ...
> > I'm also not sure anymore about which portage version was first to
> > support sets. What I did was blow my top at the forced downgrade of
> > portage at Zac's whim, and unmasked portage. Lots of troubles immediately
> > and at once went away when I did this...
>
> Maybe that's why I remember using @preserved-rebuild once or maybe twice.
> I'm running the same portage now on x86, ~x86, and ~amd64, i.e. 2.1.6.13,
> which apparently doesn't know about sets.  portage-2.2_rc33 is masked on
> my profiles.

The only reason it's masked is to force as many users as possible to use an 
earlier version so that it "can receive more testing and get better bug 
reports", and that was done by Zac himself. There is not a single technical or 
code quality reason for it to be masked, it's purely a human issue

Just unmask portage and be done with it, I can't recall the last time there 
was a valid problem with latest portage reported here so it must have been a 
very long time ago.

-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: can fix preserved-rebuild ...

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 514 bytes --]

On Sun, 07 Jun 2009 09:28:21 +0800, William Kenworthy wrote:

> *  sys-apps/portage
>       Latest version available: 2.1.6.13
>       Latest version installed: 2.2_rc15

If you're going to run release candidate versions, at least run the
latest release candidate. rc15 hasn't been in portage for a while, we're
currently on rc33. Add ~sys-apps/portage-2.2 package.{unmask,keywords} to
ensure you have a valid version.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Phasers don't kill people...Unless you set them too high.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: can fix preserved-rebuild ...

[Graham Murray]

Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> writes:

> The only reason it's masked is to force as many users as possible to use an 
> earlier version so that it "can receive more testing and get better bug 
> reports", and that was done by Zac himself. There is not a single technical or 
> code quality reason for it to be masked, it's purely a human issue

Though I seem to remember that at the time portage 2.2_rc was masked it
was stated to only be a temporary measure to force more people to test
2.1.6 and that the mask would be removed when 2.1.6 went stable - which
it has been for some while.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: can fix preserved-rebuild ...

[William Kenworthy]

2.1.6.13 was the latest when ... - thats as kindly as I can think of the
person and his reasons for putting me through a lot of work as I didnt
notice the downgrade on one system in time.  If it was for security or
other reasons I could understand it, and maybe not agree with it ... but
just because he wanted some extra testing he decided to "play" with
users systems!  I agree with you that portage is usually bug free and
trustworthy ... but the trust aspect has been sorely tried.

On this system, I just left portage at what seemed to be a working
version to avoid the problems caused by the downgrade.  This was a few
weeks ago now, so they have probably been sorted, but I think it might
be better to upgrade and find another stable, working version.

BillK


On Sun, 2009-06-07 at 17:11 +0100, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Sun, 07 Jun 2009 09:28:21 +0800, William Kenworthy wrote:
> 
> > *  sys-apps/portage
> >       Latest version available: 2.1.6.13
> >       Latest version installed: 2.2_rc15
> 
> If you're going to run release candidate versions, at least run the
> latest release candidate. rc15 hasn't been in portage for a while, we're
> currently on rc33. Add ~sys-apps/portage-2.2 package.{unmask,keywords} to
> ensure you have a valid version.
> 
> 
-- 
William Kenworthy <billk@iinet.net.au>
Home in Perth!

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: can fix preserved-rebuild ...

[William Kenworthy]

hmmm ... sounds a bit cranky! - had a tooth out today :(

BilLK

On Mon, 2009-06-08 at 20:25 +0800, William Kenworthy wrote:
> 2.1.6.13 was the latest when ... - thats as kindly as I can think of the
> person and his reasons for putting me through a lot of work as I didnt
> notice the downgrade on one system in time.  If it was for security or
> other reasons I could understand it, and maybe not agree with it ... but
> just because he wanted some extra testing he decided to "play" with
> users systems!  I agree with you that portage is usually bug free and
> trustworthy ... but the trust aspect has been sorely tried.
> 
> On this system, I just left portage at what seemed to be a working
> version to avoid the problems caused by the downgrade.  This was a few
> weeks ago now, so they have probably been sorted, but I think it might
> be better to upgrade and find another stable, working version.
> 
> BillK
> 
> 
> On Sun, 2009-06-07 at 17:11 +0100, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> > On Sun, 07 Jun 2009 09:28:21 +0800, William Kenworthy wrote:
> > 
> > > *  sys-apps/portage
> > >       Latest version available: 2.1.6.13
> > >       Latest version installed: 2.2_rc15
> > 
> > If you're going to run release candidate versions, at least run the
> > latest release candidate. rc15 hasn't been in portage for a while, we're
> > currently on rc33. Add ~sys-apps/portage-2.2 package.{unmask,keywords} to
> > ensure you have a valid version.
> > 
> > 
-- 
William Kenworthy <billk@iinet.net.au>
Home in Perth!

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: can fix preserved-rebuild ...

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 287 bytes --]

On Mon, 08 Jun 2009 20:25:57 +0800, William Kenworthy wrote:

> On this system, I just left portage at what seemed to be a working
> version to avoid the problems caused by the downgrade.

I think the key word here is "seemed" :(


-- 
Neil Bothwick

There's no place like ~

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]