From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1OJyIu-0000fC-Af for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 03 Jun 2010 00:29:00 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4DDD4E0E76; Thu, 3 Jun 2010 00:27:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-pv0-f181.google.com (mail-pv0-f181.google.com [74.125.83.181]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20164E0E76 for ; Thu, 3 Jun 2010 00:27:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: by pvc22 with SMTP id 22so1463194pvc.40 for ; Wed, 02 Jun 2010 17:27:24 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=c08SagjFRMzm7SYFhdai2A0bpU4cd3a133yOihMouaA=; b=dpiRSRKfoOCYd51ShaWS95LT/NVq2PRA4xlA/vUplESILMNyfBXDyCmlDWpf1Qjf5W 8nsH4UF4B4oYkZqEZtEAStQvwH/RD63by0CrYLwJVqxFniq7jxmSog427X4X9thoLNqq A2dI5jnBpNDOT/eJXiizsrdi7otj9lEQ6ZTIo= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=qAnFlYchpkEnPVCERS8Vwqpkx0j9uIkZZsnBtfIUCvKI4g3yaHKJEO9QflJq9bdCqo NOL/HOSmZ+Xtb0tQL4nodEkB2/UAGZDKtVwxlfnMNnvUyyV2HxGuhjtflYiRuh4LemL1 La6PrPEOOH0dDpEkMJMhRPFdgUG3sstJEg1wg= Received: by 10.140.180.20 with SMTP id c20mr7318290rvf.76.1275524844327; Wed, 02 Jun 2010 17:27:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.72] ([59.154.26.81]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id o38sm9845505rvp.0.2010.06.02.17.27.22 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Wed, 02 Jun 2010 17:27:23 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4C06F751.30201@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2010 10:29:05 +1000 From: Jake Moe User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100415 Thunderbird/3.0.4 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org CC: Dale Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] How to verify stable system after fsck corrections References: <4C04D6F9.6040106@gmail.com> <20100601120405.44ae452b@zaphod.digimed.co.uk> <4C057BA5.40303@gmail.com> <4C05E3BE.3000403@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4C05E3BE.3000403@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 1da59e59-2690-45a6-99df-5265ba64631b X-Archives-Hash: 2b19ec2d7ba9fdcfb0c34b849614450e On 02/06/10 14:53, Dale wrote: > Jake Moe wrote: >> On 01/06/10 21:04, Neil Bothwick wrote: >> >>> On Tue, 01 Jun 2010 19:46:33 +1000, Jake Moe wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> My question is: is there a way that Portage can compare what's >>>> currently on the hard disk with what it installed, and do some sort of >>>> checksum verification on it? >>>> >>>> >>> Portage records a checksum for each file it installs, that's how it >>> known >>> not to delete files that were not installed by the ebuild it is >>> unmerging. equery has an option to check packages against these >>> >>> equery check --only-failures '*' >>> >>> Note that it will show failures on any files that have been modified >>> since installation, such as configuration and data files, so you'll >>> have >>> to check these manually, but if a library or executable shows up you >>> almost certainly have a problem. >>> >>> >>> >> Thanks for that Neil. Sounds like just what I need. However, when I >> run it, I get: >> >> >> jmoe@jhb5970 ~ $ equery check --only-failures '*' >> !!! unknown local option --only-failures, ignoring >> !!! Invalid Atom: '' >> jmoe@jhb5970 ~ $ equery check '*' >> !!! Invalid Atom: '' >> jmoe@jhb5970 ~ $ >> >> >> Is the '*' atom spec a new Portage feature? I haven't switched to the >> new Portage yet, I'm still using "stable". Maybe it's time I bite the >> bullet and upgrade... >> >> John Moe >> >> > > I'm running the latest portage and the command worked fine here. I > been running the latest portage for a while and it works fine. May as > well upgrade and check out the new features. > > Dale > > :-) :-) > For the record, I unmasked and un-keyworded (is that the right word?) Portage, and got the same complaint from the command. So I un-keyworded gentoolkit as well, and now it works. John Moe