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 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1IHyid-0006F0-Uz for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 06 Aug 2007 09:17:44 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with SMTP id l769GPim031347; Mon, 6 Aug 2007 09:16:25 GMT Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l769C35f026451 for ; Mon, 6 Aug 2007 09:12:03 GMT Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D815A656D2 for ; Mon, 6 Aug 2007 09:12:02 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at gentoo.org X-Spam-Score: -0.162 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.162 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=-0.163, BAYES_50=0.001] Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hDpi4+X4MaeI for ; Mon, 6 Aug 2007 09:12:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56DCB65625 for ; Mon, 6 Aug 2007 09:11:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IHycx-0003GW-TC for gentoo-user@gentoo.org; Mon, 06 Aug 2007 11:11:51 +0200 Received: from blueboticspc1.epfl.ch ([128.179.67.27]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 06 Aug 2007 11:11:51 +0200 Received: from remy.blank by blueboticspc1.epfl.ch with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 06 Aug 2007 11:11:51 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org From: Remy Blank Subject: [gentoo-user] Re: portage inconsistency? Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 11:11:39 +0200 Message-ID: References: <548133.69625.qm@web31706.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <200708051632.36725.bo.andresen@zlin.dk> <46B6DFA5.7080406@silvanoc.com> 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: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enigBB9D2A9BEE321BF3A126582D" X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: blueboticspc1.epfl.ch User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.6) Gecko/20070728 Thunderbird/2.0.0.6 Mnenhy/0.7.5.0 In-Reply-To: <46B6DFA5.7080406@silvanoc.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.3 Sender: news X-Archives-Salt: 725e78e5-a6a9-44cb-bca6-7c95a59bc5f7 X-Archives-Hash: 8c43e94edb35c88cfbc6ee12b1736291 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enigBB9D2A9BEE321BF3A126582D Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Abraham Mar=EDn P=E9rez wrote: > Now think there's a new version available of LIB, let's say version 2.1= ,=20 > but the latest version of APP is still 1.0. If portage performed a deep= =20 > update by default LIB would be rebuilt, but no APP, what would cause=20 > broken dependencies on APP (remember LIB is a dynamic library). However= ,=20 > is you don't update LIB unless you update also APP you will prevent thi= s=20 > problem*. That's what revdep-rebuild is for. Update your LIB, run revdep-rebuild, and if APP is really broken by the LIB update (it doesn't have to be), it will be rebuilt. -- Remy --------------enigBB9D2A9BEE321BF3A126582D Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32) iD8DBQFGtuXLCeNfIyhvXjIRApDiAJ9W0crsNZv735drQdRgOcc+dEAY9ACeIPo9 FrxHzdh30UPLUAwDMjpAhyc= =8E53 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enigBB9D2A9BEE321BF3A126582D-- -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list