From: Grant <emailgrant@gmail.com>
To: Gentoo mailing list <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] System maintenance procedure?
Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2012 13:54:25 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAN0CFw0x6FabSL2EVyn731ySGiiWhT4W7=eazUVwm45Up-FRiA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20121208232507.6f348f86@khamul.example.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2039 bytes --]
> > > So they are not really the same thing at all.I'm not saying they're
> > > the same, I'm saying it looks like @preserved-rebuild does a subset
> > > of the things revdep-rebuild does. Why run @preserved-rebuild
> > > followed by revdep-rebuild if the end result is the same as running
> > > revdep-rebuild? I'm sure I'm missing something here but I don't
> > > know what it is.
>
> OK, I see what you mean.
>
> I'm a pessimistic sysadmin who's written a lot of code. I know bug
> factories when I see one :-)
>
> @preserved-rebuild is an excellent idea, but I haven't seen anything
> yet to convince me that it is bug-free enough yet to the point where I
> can drop revdep-rebuild entirely. So I still want the safety net of
> running revdep-rebuild occasionally just in case there's something
> @preserved-rebuild missed.
>
> It's also a good way to find bugs in @preserved-rebuild
Got it. So @preserved-rebuild is meant to be a replacement for
revdep-rebuild but we aren't sure it's completely ready yet. In that case,
I think I'm ready to switch.
BTW, what should I do about this:
# revdep-rebuild -p
* Configuring search environment for revdep-rebuild
* Checking reverse dependencies
* Packages containing binaries and libraries broken by a package update
* will be emerged.
* Collecting system binaries and libraries
* Found existing 1_files.rr
* Collecting complete LD_LIBRARY_PATH
* Found existing 2_ldpath.rr.
* Checking dynamic linking consistency
* Found existing 3_broken.rr.
* Assigning files to packages
* !!! /usr/lib64/libsvn_ra_neon-1.so.0.0.0 not owned by any package is
broken !!!
* /usr/lib64/libsvn_ra_neon-1.so.0.0.0 -> (none)
* !!! /usr/lib64/libwebkitgtk-1.0.so.0.11.2 not owned by any package is
broken !!!
* /usr/lib64/libwebkitgtk-1.0.so.0.11.2 -> (none)
* Generated new 4_raw.rr and 4_owners.rr
* Found some broken files, but none of them were associated with known
packages
* Unable to proceed with automatic repairs.
* The broken files are listed in 4_owners.rr
- Grant
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2587 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-12-08 21:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 45+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-12-05 0:30 [gentoo-user] System maintenance procedure? Grant
2012-12-05 1:00 ` nybblenybblebyte
2012-12-05 1:21 ` Dale
2012-12-05 3:55 ` Grant
2012-12-05 1:36 ` Neil Bothwick
2012-12-05 4:04 ` Grant
2012-12-05 4:34 ` Dale
2012-12-05 5:15 ` Grant
2012-12-05 10:22 ` Dale
2012-12-08 0:57 ` Grant
2012-12-08 22:04 ` Grant
2012-12-08 23:25 ` Dale
2012-12-15 3:38 ` Grant
2012-12-05 12:50 ` Neil Bothwick
2012-12-08 0:55 ` Grant
2012-12-05 3:15 ` Pandu Poluan
2012-12-05 3:29 ` Allan Gottlieb
2012-12-05 3:34 ` Dale
2012-12-05 10:05 ` Alan McKinnon
2012-12-08 0:56 ` Grant
2012-12-08 11:58 ` Neil Bothwick
2012-12-08 20:06 ` Alan McKinnon
2012-12-08 21:07 ` Grant
2012-12-08 21:25 ` Alan McKinnon
2012-12-08 21:54 ` Grant [this message]
2012-12-08 22:08 ` Alan McKinnon
2012-12-09 0:41 ` Grant
2012-12-08 22:49 ` Neil Bothwick
2012-12-08 23:20 ` Dale
2012-12-09 4:22 ` Dale
2012-12-09 13:18 ` Bruce Hill
2012-12-09 16:48 ` Neil Bothwick
2012-12-09 17:01 ` Bruce Hill
2012-12-09 19:06 ` Neil Bothwick
2012-12-11 13:36 ` Bruce Hill
2012-12-11 14:04 ` Neil Bothwick
2012-12-11 17:20 ` Michael Orlitzky
2012-12-12 6:05 ` Alan McKinnon
2012-12-12 9:29 ` Neil Bothwick
2012-12-12 15:10 ` Bruce Hill
2012-12-12 9:49 ` Neil Bothwick
2012-12-12 12:16 ` design [depois das dez]
2012-12-09 0:33 ` Peter Humphrey
2012-12-10 7:50 ` Daniel Wagener
2012-12-10 8:41 ` [gentoo-user] " Steven J. Long
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='CAN0CFw0x6FabSL2EVyn731ySGiiWhT4W7=eazUVwm45Up-FRiA@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=emailgrant@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