From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LKzGJ-00040p-Bd for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 08 Jan 2009 18:05:43 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8F9DBE03D8; Thu, 8 Jan 2009 18:05:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from yx-out-1718.google.com (yx-out-1718.google.com [74.125.44.157]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53121E03D8 for ; Thu, 8 Jan 2009 18:05:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: by yx-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id 4so3044587yxp.46 for ; Thu, 08 Jan 2009 10:05:38 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=ASLuTVW7MFjXbo9fIU5gpLkkXyrgTrP4D92k6sCfMTQ=; b=mWfMy9x2GIHxLr3r95b6lXGvKtUFTC1yWKYN5g7hupYrjh4FVnRolIeG2aAg+zUP7Z dKAGa5/4+0qMy1dm1BBcimkKNl+Q8vcNEZopsxK6qVd/6KXqQJ+FatBVT4xs+itsHdgC ItwrOKUifPwGtbs8vVlC2W8ZeRqCI7PTDlOSM= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references; b=et+dPRnHWOdGod5v2Zs9VoLpcxQgtLtzoFpnVIj/MYY3ZJJwi3p0jiffuWqes7N+8M +Eaw2C3jh/IXTvN9m9vzS/k7sXK1CAOT4JCTcP3bpongGE7t28l3OlO371HUMjSx+uUn FS2FuXkMyYSmhREohvhOExq3vox3sElis+pSA= Received: by 10.143.4.16 with SMTP id g16mr10279360wfi.124.1231437937563; Thu, 08 Jan 2009 10:05:37 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.142.127.14 with HTTP; Thu, 8 Jan 2009 10:05:37 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <5bdc1c8b0901081005m13a05ed2obaa0dbba952bad9c@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 10:05:37 -0800 From: "Mark Knecht" To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Please explain why this new 'emerge @preserved-rebuild' is good? In-Reply-To: <20090108180024.3eb268f7@krikkit> 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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <5bdc1c8b0901080920g1a0edb11r466c26bb0e7c98a1@mail.gmail.com> <20090108174715.7fad44ec@krikkit> <5bdc1c8b0901080953o1c6acb99jfc589f1acf3508e2@mail.gmail.com> <20090108180024.3eb268f7@krikkit> X-Archives-Salt: d9fa9ae7-f8c1-47e7-8f38-319df9d8c2e8 X-Archives-Hash: 69d0224907982cee5f29b1b8bdff6f92 On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 10:00 AM, Neil Bothwick wrote: > On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 09:53:18 -0800, Mark Knecht wrote: > >> OK, so the programs aren't broken but in my case the libs aren't >> rebuilding since the emerge step fails. > > It's the programs that need to be rebuilt, against the newer libraries. > OK, thanks. That makes sense as @preserved-rebuild wanted to emerge evolution. >> What to do? Just sit and wait until someone updates something in >> portage and eventually it gets cleaned up well enough to build? > > Or file a bug on b.g.o. Seems I'm generally better off to wait a few days before I do that, but it is an option. > >> If that is the basic answer then when do the old libs get removed? >> When the @preserved-rebuild finally passes? > > That's how I understand it works. Makes sense. Thanks, Mark > > > -- > Neil Bothwick > > You cannot really appreciate Dilbert unless you've read it in the > original Klingon. >