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 983831381F4 for ; Sat, 8 Dec 2012 21:56:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7E8A021C0AB; Sat, 8 Dec 2012 21:55:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ee0-f53.google.com (mail-ee0-f53.google.com [74.125.83.53]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9A1D021C092 for ; Sat, 8 Dec 2012 21:54:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ee0-f53.google.com with SMTP id c50so932470eek.40 for ; Sat, 08 Dec 2012 13:54:26 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=9ZSvHJJBsMYB+mM9wjrj3tK3tLPEiA2A/X13oQbQjRc=; b=FZ1yB3rL2MFY5Nu4qaDOKKkGSEZZXEfugPhDYj/x+7vGw7imXraoHzM1qrh0Oqpf8o 9gTKdgbjL94Bs5hFZoOVPareEyLW1n5pFUTNIKTMujBrCMSm5MC7yfpbsmnGbNdBRC6Q ePBWpmFOm9h0c6EryNTrsE+PNndpcte4lDUmYnTMRKIYjA5xmV9wrdX7AezyTHLLHNhH gLWHADjPJNEQcgdshnziI0csmbiMGyD8A6un0wECbABQc/Xf7E30HdJC7hzO7ks/Xxm4 K5l8h8mR3EdU2YFfRRn3FD3SGizaN5goSvceBRTUM7sNuiTVGy3M973tqeCy+3HdA4Qg zZYA== 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 Received: by 10.14.194.199 with SMTP id m47mr32022396een.11.1355003666181; Sat, 08 Dec 2012 13:54:26 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.223.158.68 with HTTP; Sat, 8 Dec 2012 13:54:25 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20121208232507.6f348f86@khamul.example.com> References: <20121205120550.2bc346bf@khamul.example.com> <20121208220616.44fb92ae@khamul.example.com> <20121208232507.6f348f86@khamul.example.com> Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2012 13:54:25 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] System maintenance procedure? From: Grant To: Gentoo mailing list Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b343a8a312ce604d05e60de X-Archives-Salt: b78aea1d-83b2-4449-84c8-067c44ac6e92 X-Archives-Hash: 093c5f02e841927070e29d4c3cba6477 --047d7b343a8a312ce604d05e60de Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > > 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 --047d7b343a8a312ce604d05e60de Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > > > So they are not really the same thing at all.I'm not say= ing they're
> > > the same, I'm saying it looks like @p= reserved-rebuild does a subset
> > > of the things revdep-rebui= ld does. =A0Why run @preserved-rebuild
> > > followed by revdep-rebuild if the end result is the same as = running
> > > revdep-rebuild? =A0I'm sure I'm missing s= omething here but I don't
> > > know what it is.
> > OK, I see what you mean.
>
> I'm a pessimistic sysadmi= n who's written a lot of code. I know bug
> factories when I see = one :-)
>
> @preserved-rebuild is an excellent idea, but I have= n'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 o= f
> running revdep-rebuild occasionally just in case there's some= thing
> @preserved-rebuild missed.
>
> It's also a good way to= find bugs in @preserved-rebuild

Got it. =A0So @preserved-rebui= ld is meant to be a replacement for revdep-rebuild but we aren't sure i= t's completely ready yet. =A0In that case, I think I'm ready to swi= tch.

BTW, what should I do about this:

<= div>
# revdep-rebuild -p
=A0* Configuring search environment = for revdep-rebuild

=A0* Checking reverse dependenc= ies
=A0* Packages containing binaries and libraries broken by a package up= date
=A0* will be emerged.

=A0* Collecti= ng system binaries and libraries
=A0* Found existing 1_files.rr
=A0* Collecting complete LD_LIBRARY_PATH
=A0* Found existing= 2_ldpath.rr.
=A0* Checking dynamic linking consistency
=A0* Found existing 3_broken.rr.
=A0* Assigning files to package= s
=A0* =A0!!! /usr/lib64/libsvn_ra_neon-1.so.0.0.0 not owned by any pack= age is broken !!!
=A0* =A0 /usr/lib64/libsvn_ra_neon-1.so.0.0.0 -= > (none)
=A0* =A0!!! /usr/lib64/libwebkitgtk-1.0.so.0.11.2 not= owned by any package is broken !!!
=A0* =A0 /usr/lib64/libwebkitgtk-1.0.so.0.11.2 -> (none)
= =A0* Generated new 4_raw.rr and 4_owners.rr
=A0* Found some broke= n files, but none of them were associated with known packages
=A0= * Unable to proceed with automatic repairs.
=A0* The broken files are listed in 4_owners.rr

- Grant
--047d7b343a8a312ce604d05e60de--