From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DqDEB-00028H-F3 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 06 Jul 2005 16:58:27 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j66GtrNp016677; Wed, 6 Jul 2005 16:55:53 GMT Received: from rproxy.gmail.com (rproxy.gmail.com [64.233.170.200]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j66Gmoxp000556 for ; Wed, 6 Jul 2005 16:48:51 GMT Received: by rproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id j1so1055116rnf for ; Wed, 06 Jul 2005 09:49:44 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=MQkVBiFCM2q91vBxDfkCXNiWv3sRow9oLgqMlZLKAZ1iMdNBwHpHN63HaEZXXH6/7Dy8cN5MSTQaKPGu4YJDemliEK17DLRb2nC+kVd8IcUb88DPyBlaKN0Iqh21/2vimYs5dZCTnQaQPfeQDfIRrCLSu3fPqHqS1UtiWKaaoRU= Received: by 10.38.11.17 with SMTP id 17mr3568169rnk; Wed, 06 Jul 2005 09:49:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.39.3.65 with HTTP; Wed, 6 Jul 2005 09:49:43 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 09:49:43 -0700 From: Wade Brown To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] revdep-rebuild reports broken libs, should I worry? In-Reply-To: <003a01c58248$5c686990$5f01010a@jnetlab.lcl> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline References: <003a01c58248$5c686990$5f01010a@jnetlab.lcl> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by robin.gentoo.org id j66Gmoxp000556 X-Archives-Salt: a2fab661-ebb5-433d-a12d-fda7166d6e0a X-Archives-Hash: bbd35ac3a4afae20fe591d6f8195ae74 In this specific case, "Broken" means "Binary Package". Binary packages are distributed with all kinds of libraries linked to so that they can minimize the amount of binary packages they need to maintain (e.g. they don't need an eclipse-gnome and an eclipse-nognome package). The program will ideally run as if those features were disabled at compile time, but usually does spit out a few errors on console about missing libraries. Revdep wanting to rebuild binary packages everytime is a known issue, and in newer (still masked?) versions there is a specific directory omission setting to tell it to ignore /opt, and anywhere else there may be binary packages. If it is still masked as I think, then you could just $EDITOR `which revdep-rebuild` and take out /opt from the SEARCH_DIRS variable. Anyway, quick answer, No, your packages are not broken, so no worries. On 7/6/05, Dave Nebinger wrote: > On a run of revdep-rebuild I get the following output: > > butthead ~ # revdep-rebuild -p > > Checking reverse dependencies... > Packages containing binaries and libraries broken by any package update, > will be recompiled. > > Collecting system binaries and libraries... done. > (/root/.revdep-rebuild.1_files) > > Collecting complete LD_LIBRARY_PATH... done. > (/root/.revdep-rebuild.2_ldpath) > > Checking dynamic linking consistency... > broken > /opt/OpenOffice.org/program/python-core-2.2.2/lib/lib-dynload/_tkinter.so > (requires libtk8.4.so libtcl8.4.so) > broken > /opt/eclipse/plugins/org.eclipse.swt.gtk_3.0.1/os/linux/x86/libswt-gnome-gtk > -3063.so (requires libgnomeui-2.so.0 libbonoboui-2.so.0 > libgnomecanvas-2.so.0 libgnome-2.so.0 libbonobo-2.so.0 libgconf-2.so.4 > libgnomevfs-2.so.0 libbonobo-activation.so.4 libORBit-2.so.0 liblinc.so.1) > broken /opt/firefox/components/libmozgnome.so (requires libgconf-2.so.4 > libORBit-2.so.0 liblinc.so.1 libgnomevfs-2.so.0 libbonobo-activation.so.4 > libgnome-2.so.0 libbonobo-2.so.0) > broken /opt/firefox/components/libnkgnomevfs.so (requires > libgnomevfs-2.so.0 libbonobo-activation.so.4 libORBit-2.so.0 liblinc.so.1) > done. > (/root/.revdep-rebuild.3_rebuild) > > Assigning files to ebuilds... done. > (/root/.revdep-rebuild.4_ebuilds) > > Evaluating package order... done. > (/root/.revdep-rebuild.5_order) > > Dynamic linking on your system is consistent... All done. > > > Now the reason for 'broken' is that I don't have gnome installed, that much > I understand. And I'm cool with the fact that revdep-rebuild didn't try to > install gnome even though these are marked as broken. > > The question is, I guess, whether 'broken' has some other meaning than what > I'm thinking, and do I need to be worried? > > > > -- > gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list > > -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list