From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LKzIV-0004Vy-5Z for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 08 Jan 2009 18:07:59 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4BA88E033A; Thu, 8 Jan 2009 18:07:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from wf-out-1314.google.com (wf-out-1314.google.com [209.85.200.170]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F14AE033A for ; Thu, 8 Jan 2009 18:07:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wf-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id 29so10208110wff.10 for ; Thu, 08 Jan 2009 10:07:54 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; bh=XlPhXyMhgvihMDI0OVGxC5A9CZGhkc5ZkSrgGoGd6Wk=; b=ROp1UQzIW8id6oNyJ1iNWcWULfnrcUjAmf7L58RO40+JbH9h8WOGJgkopaDHPa+AMs A5TDTkL6EB40sQSG/5ZMHE+1Ms1pWY2sNBtUKaWd0xt3TdBaTRFZ5QH30ckJ8V5JaLNK 5ktE19TSaOLra4qvXgQOKWOeseVMQRSmvkubM= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:references; b=TfCSTgZUu7wTEr01RjxTMHl8xgrNZMjfsNZq9BvitMy7QkXyu/AsEHTP4mVd9fso6u L387nFIR4wWwoUORqvQl8iReFeXAUmDWPSGSyqsjVw8fd28FAKrZ8lu9w7pnl6SRU+gS hDMQDrPFK/aIEgK25dbRodOLnRgXqb56CRRFo= Received: by 10.142.116.12 with SMTP id o12mr10257739wfc.332.1231438074795; Thu, 08 Jan 2009 10:07:54 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.143.92.7 with HTTP; Thu, 8 Jan 2009 10:07:54 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 10:07:54 -0800 From: "James Ausmus" To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Please explain why this new 'emerge @preserved-rebuild' is good? In-Reply-To: <5bdc1c8b0901081003j72b07cdfve2247ff81cdd3dc2@mail.gmail.com> 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 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_208695_17992707.1231438074783" References: <5bdc1c8b0901080920g1a0edb11r466c26bb0e7c98a1@mail.gmail.com> <87aba14rtq.fsf@newton.gmurray.org.uk> <5bdc1c8b0901080951x2b83ef09yea7d8d18c722c737@mail.gmail.com> <20090108175825.0584e0a4@krikkit> <5bdc1c8b0901081003j72b07cdfve2247ff81cdd3dc2@mail.gmail.com> X-Archives-Salt: f53a7061-5d86-4ae8-8ca2-340202990c6f X-Archives-Hash: 222e72c7e4300f3ac0c158dbd862f40f ------=_Part_208695_17992707.1231438074783 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 10:03 AM, Mark Knecht wrote: > On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 9:58 AM, Neil Bothwick 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 > > ------=_Part_208695_17992707.1231438074783 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline

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


------=_Part_208695_17992707.1231438074783--