public inbox for gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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 13:07:28 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAN0CFw2bwcSXiODiAHTvvRE+BtsNHoy7eJiXQ+dEXMXMXDcxWA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20121208220616.44fb92ae@khamul.example.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1898 bytes --]

> > > The logic is:
> > >
> > > Rebuild busted packages that portage already knows about
> > > (@preserved-rebuild), then get rid of oudated packages and finally
> > > revdep-rebuild to fix anything that --depclean broke.
> > >
> > > @preserved-rebuild is getting very good at what it does lately
> > > (supported in all recent portage version including stable IIRC), as
> > > is --depclean, so revdep-rebuild seldom finds anything to do these
> > > days.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Alan McKinnon
> >
> > If revdep-rebuild does everything that @preserved-rebuild does and
> > more, why run @preserved-rebuild at all?
>
> @preserved-rebuild does it correctly, does not break your system and
> does not leave it in an indeterminate state while you spend hours
> trying to figure out what went on.
>
> revdep-rebuild does all those things (and also gets around to fixing
> broken libs while taking it's own sweet time to do it).
>
> 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.

- Grant


> Basically, portage removes old .so files when doing upgrades. If the
> so-name changes, packages using that file are now broken.
> revdep-rebuild was a phase 1 effort to repair that damage after the
> fact, and it was good at that.
>
> @preserved-rebuild is a feature in portage that won't remove old .so
> files until the last binary linking to it is removed. IOW, things still
> work meanwhile. It's analogous to the Unix style of deleting files - if
> you app still has a handle to a file and the file is deleted, your app
> does not notice the difference as from it's POV the delete has not
> happened yet

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2319 bytes --]

  reply	other threads:[~2012-12-08 21:09 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 [this message]
2012-12-08 21:25         ` Alan McKinnon
2012-12-08 21:54           ` Grant
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=CAN0CFw2bwcSXiODiAHTvvRE+BtsNHoy7eJiXQ+dEXMXMXDcxWA@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