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 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1HJCxg-0001jA-6m for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 19 Feb 2007 18:10:04 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with SMTP id l1JI8UFT025973; Mon, 19 Feb 2007 18:08:30 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 l1JI0Jsv015365 for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2007 18:00:23 GMT Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87026642A5 for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2007 18:00:22 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at gentoo.org X-Spam-Score: 5.389 X-Spam-Level: ***** X-Spam-Status: No, score=5.389 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=-0.728, BAYES_00=-2.599, FROM_HAS_MIXED_NUMS=2.155, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=2.861, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=1.456, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO=1.5, SARE_FREE_WEBM_NetSafe=0.667, TW_VD=0.077] 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 E115spjX8lLt for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2007 18:00:15 +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 7777A649EB for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2007 18:00:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1HJCnw-0004jz-93 for gentoo-user@gentoo.org; Mon, 19 Feb 2007 19:00:01 +0100 Received: from 149.9.0.57 ([149.9.0.57]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2007 19:00:00 +0100 Received: from dnlt0hn5ntzhbqkv51 by 149.9.0.57 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2007 19:00:00 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org From: dnlt0hn5ntzhbqkv51 Subject: [gentoo-user] Re: revdep-rebuild question Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 12:53:15 -0500 Message-ID: References: <5bdc1c8b0702190823o2985c5bdmf7b404f5b667a0c1@mail.gmail.com> <200702191911.40321.alan@linuxholdings.co.za> <5bdc1c8b0702190923i2b3af008x688353b63d540aaa@mail.gmail.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: text/plain; format=flowed; delsp=yes; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 149.9.0.57 User-Agent: Opera Mail/9.02 (Linux) Sender: news X-Archives-Salt: a2acbe33-fe3c-41c0-abd2-37b777c4009d X-Archives-Hash: 96472d3c0d68f0064667264f1c4bc8cc > Alan, > Seems reasonable. Would I (Could I?) then do an equery depends on > each binary and assuming nothing depends on it remove them by hand > without causing damage? > > I'd want to do another revdep-rebuild every so often to ensure that > things remained consistent. Makes sense to me - doing the equery on the package that installed the binary (which may have a name unrelated). IIUC, there are two tools useful for second/third opinions for this task; dep and pquery. Here's an example of their use on fftw: dep -L fftw pquery --vdb --revdep sci-libs/fftw And as you idicated, do a revdep-rebuild after the manual deletion. -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list