From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65826138A3F for ; Sun, 5 Apr 2015 17:03:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 08A92E0B4E; Sun, 5 Apr 2015 17:03:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smarthost01d.mail.zen.net.uk (smarthost01d.mail.zen.net.uk [212.23.1.7]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2EB4E0B47 for ; Sun, 5 Apr 2015 17:03:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [82.69.80.10] (helo=wstn.localnet) by smarthost01d.mail.zen.net.uk with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1YenxX-0007TD-Oh for gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org; Sun, 05 Apr 2015 17:03:43 +0000 From: Peter Humphrey To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Is perl broken? Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2015 18:03:43 +0100 Message-ID: <8071935.GzYLofUip3@wstn> Organization: Society for Retired Gentlefolk User-Agent: KMail/4.14.3 (Linux/3.18.9-gentoo; KDE/4.14.3; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <201504051829.05722.dilfridge@gentoo.org> References: <2929378.CsdgesgsUa@wstn> <201504051829.05722.dilfridge@gentoo.org> 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-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Originating-smarthost01d-IP: [82.69.80.10] X-Archives-Salt: 61557a1c-841f-4c8b-9a36-91f5d34ee1ee X-Archives-Hash: e31e0a64a9f67dc4883b1b21c39ddcb0 On Sunday 05 April 2015 18:29:05 Andreas K. Huettel wrote: > Do you see anything that is actually broken? Apart from perl-cleaner and portage? Emerge exiting silently after being given a list of packages to emerge doesn't exactly seem like normal behaviour to me. It was told "emerge -v1 ...[list of packages]" as in perl- cleaner's usual behaviour. No ifs, no buts - just do it. > Minor updates (5.x.y -> 5.x.y+1) do not need any rebuilds or > reinstallations of modules. > > Not 100% sure what perl-cleaner does when you run it anyway. Maybe it > reinstalls all, but it's not necessary. I just ran it to see what it'd do. I got more than I'd bargained for. > [Side note, your information on what perl-cleaner does is very vague, I > can't distll anything useful out of it.] The two virtuals were perl-File-Spec-3.480.100 and perl-Storable-2.490.100. I hope you don't want me to list the hundreds of files it can't handle. -- Rgds Peter.