From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1R5fJL-0004Zu-CC for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 19 Sep 2011 14:59:07 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C198721C179; Mon, 19 Sep 2011 14:58:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.cs.nyu.edu (SMTP.CS.NYU.EDU [128.122.49.97]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D19D621C102 for ; Mon, 19 Sep 2011 14:57:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ajglap.localdomain (ool-182de1a5.dyn.optonline.net [24.45.225.165]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp.cs.nyu.edu (8.14.3/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p8JEvuG6023438 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Mon, 19 Sep 2011 10:57:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: by ajglap.localdomain (Postfix, from userid 1502) id 82790700BA; Mon, 19 Sep 2011 10:58:52 -0400 (EDT) From: Allan Gottlieb To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Updating libpng: another lib tool cockup? References: <20110919161002.52493882@rohan.example.com> <57242555.Dg011fuPs4@pc> Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 10:58:52 -0400 In-Reply-To: <57242555.Dg011fuPs4@pc> (Michael Schreckenbauer's message of "Mon, 19 Sep 2011 16:34:49 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.3 (gnu/linux) 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: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: 58e2f199a5fbbbaf542566f5f19c9bb0 On Mon, Sep 19 2011, Michael Schreckenbauer wrote: > On Monday, 19. September 2011 10:20:25 Allan Gottlieb wrote: >> On Mon, Sep 19 2011, Alan McKinnon wrote: >> >> > revdep-rebuild checks everything, revdep-rebuild --library >> >> > checks just some things. >> >> > >> >> > ebuilds sometimes issue messages to check just the libraries known >> >> > to have been updated, but a full revdep-rebuild after an update >> >> > will catch those anyway. >> >> >> >> Until recently I skipped the "--library" step exactly because I knew >> >> revdep-rebuild will find and fix the broken packages after I delete >> >> the old library. So, why bother with the --library step, right? >> >> >> >> However. A few weeks ago I got caught when I deleted one of those >> >> obsolete libraries and only then did I find out that gcc is one of >> >> the packages that depend on it :( >> >> >> >> I don't skip the --library step any more. >> > >> > That's odd behaviour, I wonder what caused the difference. >> > >> > Surely revdep-rebuild itself can't do this different just because you >> > specified a library to compare? I wonder if that lib was maybe in the >> > revdep-rebuild exclude list. >> > >> > I'd be interested to track it down for reference, do you remember the >> > library involved? >> >> It occurs exactly in the case we are discussing libpng >> >> ajglap gottlieb # revdep-rebuild; revdep-rebuild --library >> '/usr/lib64/libpng14.so.14' * Configuring search environment for >> revdep-rebuild >> >> * Checking reverse dependencies >> * Packages containing binaries and libraries broken by a package update >> * will be emerged. >> ... >> * Checking reverse dependencies >> * Packages containing binaries and libraries using >> /usr/lib64/libpng14.so.14 * will be emerged. > > First one emerges *broken* packages. > Second one emerge packages *using* png14 (not necessarily broken) OK. But the claim was that: if revdep-rebuild with no argument found nothing to build, then revdep-rebuild --library will find nothing. This guarantee is apparently no long true as my example in another msg illustrated. allan