[gentoo-user] rhythmbox is looking for an older shared object

[gentoo-user] rhythmbox is looking for an older shared object

[dhk]

revdep-rebuild is flagging rhythmbox as requiring
libtotem-plparser.so.10 .  After the last upgrade all I have installed
in /usr/lib64/ is libtotem-plparser.so.12 .  Should I just make a link
or do I need to install an older version?  or should I wait for a
rhythmbax update?

Other similar files installed are:
# ls -FC1 /usr/lib64/libtotem-plparser*
/usr/lib64/libtotem-plparser.la
/usr/lib64/libtotem-plparser-mini.la
/usr/lib64/libtotem-plparser-mini.so@
/usr/lib64/libtotem-plparser-mini.so.12@
/usr/lib64/libtotem-plparser-mini.so.12.0.5*
/usr/lib64/libtotem-plparser.so@
/usr/lib64/libtotem-plparser.so.12@
/usr/lib64/libtotem-plparser.so.12.0.5*


Thanks,

Dave

Re: [gentoo-user] rhythmbox is looking for an older shared object

[Walter Dnes]

On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 05:44:04PM -0400, dhk wrote
> revdep-rebuild is flagging rhythmbox as requiring
> libtotem-plparser.so.10 .  After the last upgrade all I have installed
> in /usr/lib64/ is libtotem-plparser.so.12 .  Should I just make a link
> or do I need to install an older version?  or should I wait for a
> rhythmbax update?

  How does the system respond if you do a...

revdep-rebuild -p -v

Note: do it exactly as above.  -p is "pretend", because we're just
looking, and -v is "verbose", for more detail.  According to the man
page, you should *NOT* do "revdep-rebuild -pv".

-- 
Walter Dnes <waltdnes@waltdnes.org>

Re: [gentoo-user] rhythmbox is looking for an older shared object

[dhk]

Walter Dnes wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 05:44:04PM -0400, dhk wrote
>> revdep-rebuild is flagging rhythmbox as requiring
>> libtotem-plparser.so.10 .  After the last upgrade all I have installed
>> in /usr/lib64/ is libtotem-plparser.so.12 .  Should I just make a link
>> or do I need to install an older version?  or should I wait for a
>> rhythmbax update?
> 
>   How does the system respond if you do a...
> 
> revdep-rebuild -p -v
> 
> Note: do it exactly as above.  -p is "pretend", because we're just
> looking, and -v is "verbose", for more detail.  According to the man
> page, you should *NOT* do "revdep-rebuild -pv".
> 

I missed the reply to my question last week.  Below is the output of the 
revdep-rebuild -p -v command.  It's looking for libtotem-plparser.so.10 
but I have libtotem-plparser.so.12 installed.  Any ideas?

# revdep-rebuild -p -v
  * Configuring search environment for revdep-rebuild
  * Temporary cache files are located in /var/cache/revdep-rebuild
  * Environment mismatch from previous run, deleting temporary files...

revdep-rebuild environment:
SEARCH_DIRS="/bin
/lib
/lib32
/lib64
/opt/bin
/opt/flash-libcompat
/sbin
/usr/bin
/usr/games/bin
/usr/games/lib
/usr/games/lib32
/usr/games/lib64
/usr/lib
/usr/lib32
/usr/lib32/qt4
/usr/lib64
/usr/lib64/nspr
/usr/lib64/nss
/usr/lib64/qt4
/usr/libexec
/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/4.1.2
/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/4.1.2/32
/usr/lib/qt4
/usr/local/lib
/usr/local/lib32
/usr/local/lib64
/usr/sbin
/usr/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/gcc-bin/4.1.2
/usr/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/lib"
SEARCH_DIRS_MASK="/lib64/modules
/lib/modules"
LD_LIBRARY_MASK="libjava.so
libjvm.so
libodbcinst.so
libodbc.so"
PORTAGE_ROOT="/"
EMERGE_OPTIONS=""
ORDER_PKGS="1"
FULL_LD_PATH="1"

  * Checking reverse dependencies
  * Packages containing binaries and libraries broken by a package update
  * will be emerged.

  * Collecting system binaries and libraries
  * Generated new 1_files.rr
  * Collecting complete LD_LIBRARY_PATH
  * Generated new 2_ldpath.rr
  * Checking dynamic linking consistency
[ 24% ]  *   broken /usr/bin/rhythmbox (requires libtotem-plparser.so.10)
[ 84% ]  *   broken /usr/lib64/rhythmbox/plugins/audiocd/libaudiocd.so 
(requires libtotem-plparser.so.10)
[ 100% ]
  * Generated new 3_broken.rr
  * Assigning files to packages
  *   /usr/bin/rhythmbox -> media-sound/rhythmbox
  *   /usr/lib64/rhythmbox/plugins/audiocd/libaudiocd.so -> 
media-sound/rhythmbox
  * Generated new 4_raw.rr and 4_owners.rr
  * Cleaning list of packages to rebuild
  * Generated new 4_pkgs.rr
  * Assigning packages to ebuilds
  * Generated new 4_ebuilds.rr
  * Evaluating package order
  * Generated new 5_order.rr
  * All prepared. Starting rebuild
emerge --oneshot --pretend --verbose media-sound/rhythmbox:0
!!! CONFIG_PROTECT is empty
These are the packages that would be merged, in order:

Calculating dependencies... done!
[ebuild   R   ] media-sound/rhythmbox-0.10.1-r1  USE="python -daap -dbus 
-debug -doc -flac -gnome-keyring -hal -ipod -libnotify -lirc -mad 
-musicbrainz -tagwriting -vorbis" 0 kB

Total: 1 package (1 reinstall), Size of downloads: 0 kB
  * Now you can remove -p (or --pretend) from arguments and re-run 
revdep-rebuild.

I ran emerge --oneshot --pretend --verbose media-sound/rhythmbox:0 then
emerge --oneshot --verbose media-sound/rhythmbox:0
and then got an error.  Then following is from the build.log

In file included from rb-shell.c:84:
../lib/rb-proxy-config.h:69: error: expected '=', ',', ';', 'asm' or 
'__attribute__' before '*' token
make[3]: *** [rb-shell.lo] Error 1
make[3]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs....
make[3]: Leaving directory 
`/var/tmp/portage/media-sound/rhythmbox-0.10.1-r1/work/rhythmbox-0.10.1/shell'
make[2]: *** [all] Error 2
make[2]: Leaving directory 
`/var/tmp/portage/media-sound/rhythmbox-0.10.1-r1/work/rhythmbox-0.10.1/shell'
make[1]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1
make[1]: Leaving directory 
`/var/tmp/portage/media-sound/rhythmbox-0.10.1-r1/work/rhythmbox-0.10.1'
make: *** [all] Error 2
  ^[[31;01m*^[[0m
  ^[[31;01m*^[[0m ERROR: media-sound/rhythmbox-0.10.1-r1 failed.
  ^[[31;01m*^[[0m Call stack:
  ^[[31;01m*^[[0m               ebuild.sh, line   49:  Called src_compile
  ^[[31;01m*^[[0m             environment, line 2734:  Called 
gnome2_src_compile
  ^[[31;01m*^[[0m             environment, line 2074:  Called die
  ^[[31;01m*^[[0m The specific snippet of code:
  ^[[31;01m*^[[0m       emake || die "compile failure"
  ^[[31;01m*^[[0m  The die message:
  ^[[31;01m*^[[0m   compile failure
  ^[[31;01m*^[[0m
  ^[[31;01m*^[[0m If you need support, post the topmost build error, and 
the call stack if relevant.
  ^[[31;01m*^[[0m A complete build log is located at 
'/var/tmp/portage/media-sound/rhythmbox-0.10.1-r1/temp/build.log'.
  ^[[31;01m*^[[0m The ebuild environment file is located at 
'/var/tmp/portage/media-sound/rhythmbox-0.10.1-r1/temp/environment'.
  ^[[31;01m*^[[0m



Thanks,

Dave

Re: [gentoo-user] rhythmbox is looking for an older shared object

[Walter Dnes]

On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 03:25:05PM -0400, dhk wrote

  It looks like the bugreport at...
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=263562 is identical to yours.  No
solutions proposed yet.  But do check that URL daily.  It's the most
likely place to find a fix to your problem.

  Out of sheer curiousity, what does the ":0" do in your emerge command?

-- 
Walter Dnes <waltdnes@waltdnes.org>

Re: [gentoo-user] rhythmbox is looking for an older shared object

[Walter Dnes]

  After a few more minutes of looking at the bug list, it appears that
it's caused by the stable build being rusty.  Given the references to
"lib64" in your output, I assume you're running on amd64.  Is that
correct?  If so, a quick-n-dirty workaround might be to add the
following line to your /etc/portage/package.keywords file...

=media-sound/rhythmbox-0.11.2-r1 ~amd64

  If /etc/portage/package.keywords doesn't exist, create it.  This may
be beta-level, but it has a chance of working.  The other option is

=media-sound/rhythmbox-0.11.6-r1 ~amd64

...same comments apply.

  Once a newer ebuild is marked stable, you can get rid of that keywords
entry.

-- 
Walter Dnes <waltdnes@waltdnes.org>

Re: [gentoo-user] rhythmbox is looking for an older shared object

[dhk]

Walter Dnes wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 03:25:05PM -0400, dhk wrote
> 
>   It looks like the bugreport at...
> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=263562 is identical to yours.  No
> solutions proposed yet.  But do check that URL daily.  It's the most
> likely place to find a fix to your problem.
> 
>   Out of sheer curiousity, what does the ":0" do in your emerge command?
> 
Thanks, I'll watch the bug report.

I don't know what the ":0" in the emerge command is, it was displayed 
that way in the error message.

Thanks again,

dave

Re: [gentoo-user] rhythmbox is looking for an older shared object

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 557 bytes --]

On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 06:35:41 -0400, Walter Dnes wrote:

>   It looks like the bugreport at...
> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=263562 is identical to yours.  No
> solutions proposed yet.  But do check that URL daily.

Or add yourself to the bug's CC list to get an email hen anything happens.

>   Out of sheer curiousity, what does the ":0" do in your emerge command?

It is telling portage to emerge slot 0, which is the default for an
unslotted package.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Behaviorist psychology -- pulling habits out of rats

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

Re: [gentoo-user] rhythmbox is looking for an older shared object

[dhk]

Walter Dnes wrote:
>   After a few more minutes of looking at the bug list, it appears that
> it's caused by the stable build being rusty.  Given the references to
> "lib64" in your output, I assume you're running on amd64.  Is that
> correct?  If so, a quick-n-dirty workaround might be to add the
> following line to your /etc/portage/package.keywords file...
> 
> =media-sound/rhythmbox-0.11.2-r1 ~amd64
> 
>   If /etc/portage/package.keywords doesn't exist, create it.  This may
> be beta-level, but it has a chance of working.  The other option is
> 
> =media-sound/rhythmbox-0.11.6-r1 ~amd64
> 
> ...same comments apply.
> 
>   Once a newer ebuild is marked stable, you can get rid of that keywords
> entry.
> 
The first one (0.11.2) didn't work, but the second one (0.11.6) did. 
Now revdep-rebuild completes and all is clean.  Should this be posted on 
bugzilla as a temporary solution?

Thanks,
dave

Re: [gentoo-user] rhythmbox is looking for an older shared object

[Walter Dnes]

On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 06:20:57AM -0400, dhk wrote
> The first one (0.11.2) didn't work, but the second one (0.11.6) did. Now 
> revdep-rebuild completes and all is clean.  Should this be posted on 
> bugzilla as a temporary solution?

  If you can tell them that this ebuild is working for you without
problems, it'll help get that ebuild marked as stable.  Not necessarily
tomorrow, but it will help.

-- 
Walter Dnes <waltdnes@waltdnes.org>