On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 10:03 AM, Mark Knecht <markknecht@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 9:58 AM, Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk> wrote:
> > On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 09:51:32 -0800, Mark Knecht wrote:
> >
> >> I guess then that the constant messages about doing an emerge
> >> @preserved-rebuild aren't necessarily to be followed, or at least not
> >> worried about if they fail as whatever program needs the libraries
> >> still has the old versions?
> >
> > They should be followed and the problem fixed. Not only is it untidy
> > leaving old copies of libraries around but, as Volker says, the old
> > versions can prevent revdep-rebuild working correctly.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Neil Bothwick
>
> Right now I'm seeing that @preserved-rebuild and revdep-rebuild want
> to do different things. revdep-rebuild is rebuilding nss which may or
> may not fail. @preserved-rebuild wanted to rebuild eveolution which
> did fail.
>

I would suggest performing the revdep-rebuild first, then doing the
@preserved-rebuild - if revdep-rebuild is coming up with broken packages,
those broken packages can actually prevent other packages (such as
evolution) from building properly.

-James



>
> I'm somewhat unclear as to how to proceed. Using emerge is currently
> telling me I should do an emerge -e world to fully take advantage of
> new features in portage-2.2. I guess that message wouldn't be there
> unless it was really a good thing to do but that's a lot of downtime
> for me.
>
> - Mark
>
>