public inbox for gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Michael Mol <mikemol@gmail.com>
To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] ebuild log suggests to remove old libraries
Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 14:29:38 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CA+czFiBNzhNqG3oYU+XahvftOBYviyotTXvDWf4L71Wg4fYKUA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4FBA8675.5010900@asyr.hopto.org>

On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Thanasis <thanasis@asyr.hopto.org> wrote:
> on 05/21/2012 08:49 PM Michael Mol wrote the following:
>> On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 1:28 PM, Thanasis <thanasis@asyr.hopto.org> wrote:
>>> After a recent update of dev-libs/libffi from version 3.0.10 to 3.0.11
>>> the ebuild log suggests to run:
>>>
>>>  # revdep-rebuild --library '/usr/lib64/libffi.so.5'
>>>
>>> and once finished running revdep-rebuild, it should be safe to
>>> delete the old libraries, like so:
>>>
>>>  # rm '/usr/lib64/libffi.so.5'
>>>
>>> However by querying:
>>>
>>> equery b /usr/lib/libffi.so.5
>>>  * Searching for /usr/lib/libffi.so.5 ...
>>> dev-libs/libffi-3.0.11 (/usr/lib64/libffi.so.5)
>>>
>>> we see that /usr/lib64/libffi.so.5 is reported as belonging to
>>> dev-libs/libffi-3.0.11. Is that normal?
>>
>> I think so. It might be clearer if equery omitted the version number,
>> or if it tracked which versions of a package a file belonged to.
>
> So, are you saying that libffi.so.5 does *not* actually belong to
> dev-libs/libffi-3.0.11 ?

I would be shocked if it were generated by that absolute atom, if
that's what you mean. I think it's valid to expect it was generated by
an old version of that package.

If anything, it's probably most precise to say that libffi.so.5
belongs to dev-libs/libffi, but not to any version either in your
world file nor pulled in as a dependency by something else. (Saying
"it doesn't belong to any currently-installed version of a
currently-installed package" is ambiguous, depending on whether you
count the file's presence as meaning that the older version is
installed.)

All said, though, I've never bothered to run "equery b" on something
portage told me was an obsolete version of a library. I always run
revdep-rebuild, and then remove the old version, as the instructions
say.

-- 
:wq



  reply	other threads:[~2012-05-21 18:31 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-05-21 17:28 [gentoo-user] ebuild log suggests to remove old libraries Thanasis
2012-05-21 17:49 ` Michael Mol
2012-05-21 18:16   ` Thanasis
2012-05-21 18:29     ` Michael Mol [this message]
2012-05-21 18:52     ` Markos Chandras
2012-05-21 20:50       ` Thanasis
2012-05-21 21:05         ` Markos Chandras

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=CA+czFiBNzhNqG3oYU+XahvftOBYviyotTXvDWf4L71Wg4fYKUA@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=mikemol@gmail.com \
    --cc=gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox