[gentoo-user] revdep-rebuild reports broken libs, should I worry?

[gentoo-user] revdep-rebuild reports broken libs, should I worry?

[Dave Nebinger]

On a run of revdep-rebuild I get the following output:

butthead ~ # revdep-rebuild -p

Checking reverse dependencies...
Packages containing binaries and libraries broken by any package update,
will be recompiled.

Collecting system binaries and libraries... done.
  (/root/.revdep-rebuild.1_files)

Collecting complete LD_LIBRARY_PATH... done.
  (/root/.revdep-rebuild.2_ldpath)

Checking dynamic linking consistency...
  broken
/opt/OpenOffice.org/program/python-core-2.2.2/lib/lib-dynload/_tkinter.so
(requires libtk8.4.so libtcl8.4.so)
  broken
/opt/eclipse/plugins/org.eclipse.swt.gtk_3.0.1/os/linux/x86/libswt-gnome-gtk
-3063.so (requires libgnomeui-2.so.0 libbonoboui-2.so.0
libgnomecanvas-2.so.0 libgnome-2.so.0 libbonobo-2.so.0 libgconf-2.so.4
libgnomevfs-2.so.0 libbonobo-activation.so.4 libORBit-2.so.0 liblinc.so.1)
  broken /opt/firefox/components/libmozgnome.so (requires libgconf-2.so.4
libORBit-2.so.0 liblinc.so.1 libgnomevfs-2.so.0 libbonobo-activation.so.4
libgnome-2.so.0 libbonobo-2.so.0)
  broken /opt/firefox/components/libnkgnomevfs.so (requires
libgnomevfs-2.so.0 libbonobo-activation.so.4 libORBit-2.so.0 liblinc.so.1)
 done.
  (/root/.revdep-rebuild.3_rebuild)

Assigning files to ebuilds... done.
  (/root/.revdep-rebuild.4_ebuilds)

Evaluating package order... done.
  (/root/.revdep-rebuild.5_order)

Dynamic linking on your system is consistent... All done.


Now the reason for 'broken' is that I don't have gnome installed, that much
I understand.  And I'm cool with the fact that revdep-rebuild didn't try to
install gnome even though these are marked as broken.

The question is, I guess, whether 'broken' has some other meaning than what
I'm thinking, and do I need to be worried?



-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] revdep-rebuild reports broken libs, should I worry?

[Wade Brown]

In this specific case, "Broken" means "Binary Package".  Binary
packages are distributed with all kinds of libraries linked to so that
they can minimize the amount of binary packages they need to maintain
(e.g. they don't need an eclipse-gnome and an eclipse-nognome
package).  The program will ideally run as if those features were
disabled at compile time, but usually does spit out a few errors on
console about missing libraries.

Revdep wanting to rebuild binary packages everytime is a known issue,
and in newer (still masked?) versions there is a specific directory
omission setting to tell it to ignore /opt, and anywhere else there
may be binary packages.  If it is still masked as I think, then you
could just $EDITOR `which revdep-rebuild` and take out /opt from the
SEARCH_DIRS variable.

Anyway, quick answer, No, your packages are not broken, so no worries.

On 7/6/05, Dave Nebinger <dnebinger@joat.com> wrote:
> On a run of revdep-rebuild I get the following output:
> 
> butthead ~ # revdep-rebuild -p
> 
> Checking reverse dependencies...
> Packages containing binaries and libraries broken by any package update,
> will be recompiled.
> 
> Collecting system binaries and libraries... done.
>   (/root/.revdep-rebuild.1_files)
> 
> Collecting complete LD_LIBRARY_PATH... done.
>   (/root/.revdep-rebuild.2_ldpath)
> 
> Checking dynamic linking consistency...
>   broken
> /opt/OpenOffice.org/program/python-core-2.2.2/lib/lib-dynload/_tkinter.so
> (requires libtk8.4.so libtcl8.4.so)
>   broken
> /opt/eclipse/plugins/org.eclipse.swt.gtk_3.0.1/os/linux/x86/libswt-gnome-gtk
> -3063.so (requires libgnomeui-2.so.0 libbonoboui-2.so.0
> libgnomecanvas-2.so.0 libgnome-2.so.0 libbonobo-2.so.0 libgconf-2.so.4
> libgnomevfs-2.so.0 libbonobo-activation.so.4 libORBit-2.so.0 liblinc.so.1)
>   broken /opt/firefox/components/libmozgnome.so (requires libgconf-2.so.4
> libORBit-2.so.0 liblinc.so.1 libgnomevfs-2.so.0 libbonobo-activation.so.4
> libgnome-2.so.0 libbonobo-2.so.0)
>   broken /opt/firefox/components/libnkgnomevfs.so (requires
> libgnomevfs-2.so.0 libbonobo-activation.so.4 libORBit-2.so.0 liblinc.so.1)
>  done.
>   (/root/.revdep-rebuild.3_rebuild)
> 
> Assigning files to ebuilds... done.
>   (/root/.revdep-rebuild.4_ebuilds)
> 
> Evaluating package order... done.
>   (/root/.revdep-rebuild.5_order)
> 
> Dynamic linking on your system is consistent... All done.
> 
> 
> Now the reason for 'broken' is that I don't have gnome installed, that much
> I understand.  And I'm cool with the fact that revdep-rebuild didn't try to
> install gnome even though these are marked as broken.
> 
> The question is, I guess, whether 'broken' has some other meaning than what
> I'm thinking, and do I need to be worried?
> 
> 
> 
> --
> gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
> 
>

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] revdep-rebuild reports broken libs, should I worry?

[Paul Varner]

On Wed, 2005-07-06 at 09:49 -0700, Wade Brown wrote:
> In this specific case, "Broken" means "Binary Package".  Binary
> packages are distributed with all kinds of libraries linked to so that
> they can minimize the amount of binary packages they need to maintain
> (e.g. they don't need an eclipse-gnome and an eclipse-nognome
> package).  The program will ideally run as if those features were
> disabled at compile time, but usually does spit out a few errors on
> console about missing libraries.
> 
> Revdep wanting to rebuild binary packages everytime is a known issue,
> and in newer (still masked?) versions there is a specific directory
> omission setting to tell it to ignore /opt, and anywhere else there
> may be binary packages.  If it is still masked as I think, then you
> could just $EDITOR `which revdep-rebuild` and take out /opt from the
> SEARCH_DIRS variable.
> 
> Anyway, quick answer, No, your packages are not broken, so no worries.

The newer revdep-rebuild is in gentoolkit-0.2.1_pre4, that version is
not package masked, but it is currently keyworded with the unstable
keywords.

If you use the newer revdep-rebuild, the variable that you want to set
is SEARCH_DIRS_MASK.

Regards,
Paul
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-user] deltup / file sizes

[Uwe Thiem]

Nothing really importan, I am just curious:

Anybody in the know why deltup sometimes reports file sizes and sometimes not 
when downloading a diff?

Uwe

-- 
95% of all programmers rate themselves among the top 5% of all software 
developers. - Linus Torvalds

http://www.uwix.iway.na (last updated: 20.06.2004)
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list