Hi, I have this exact problem with the Azureus package. It's a binary (java) distribution and revdep-rebuild always trys to re-emerge it no matter what I do. Seems to flip-flop between wanting the build the motif version when I have the gtk version installed and vice-versa. Very odd. Only binary package I have installed and it's the only one that does this.
Richard On Sunday 20 February 2005 11:02 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > At Sun, 20 Feb 2005 14:49:16 +0100 Holly Bostick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Dan Johansson wrote: > >> Hi, > >> When I run a revdep-rebuild it will allways rebuild OO (I'm using > >> the standard OO ebuild, not any binary version). > >> Here is the output of 'revdep-rebuild --pretend --verbose': > > [ snipped ] > > >> Someone who has a clue why revdep-rebuild wants to rebuild OO (even > >> if it just just rebuilt a few minutes ago)? > >> Regards, > >> --Dan > > > > You see that note at the beginning of the rebuild? > > > > Checking reverse dependencies... > > Packages containing binaries and libraries broken by any package update, > > will be recompiled. > > > > And then notice the two packages that are being rebuilt: > > > > [ebuild R ] app-office/openoffice-1.1.4 +curl -debug -gnome > > -hardened -java +kde -nptl +zlib 0 kB > > [ebuild R ] net-www/opera-7.54-r3 +spell -static 0 kB > > > > I think (and I must stress "think") that this is an unavoidable > > conflict between revdep-rebuild and certain "special" programs. > > > > Opera is, of course, ultimately a binary that you're extracting rather > > [ snip: I don't have opera. ] > > > OO.o is just "weird" (for want of a better word); the difficulty of > > compiling it, in addition to the length of compile, is the reason the > > binary is available in Portage. I suspect that the difficulty of > > compiling it is the issue in this case, because it seems quite likely > > to me that one of the "weirdnesses" could well be binary components > > squirreled away in that extremely long compile, which revdep-rebuild > > doesn't know how to (or is not built to) deal with. > > > > So both of these programs likely share a common weirdness factor of > > having some binary components alongside some compiled components > > (again, IANAP, this is my impression from working with them in the > > past). > > I can't comment on any weirdness in OO.o or confirm/deny that it > has binary components. But I can say that just having OO.o emerged > (from sources) does not by itself cause revdep-rebuild to complain. > I have OO.o and just now (right after a sync) tried revdep-rebuild and > it found nothing to do. > > I always pay attention to posts involving revdep-rebuild, since I > depend <groan> on it working correctly. > > [ snip ] > > allan > > PS Holly, I also often read your posts as I find them well-written and > helpful. > > -- > [email protected] mailing list -- [email protected] mailing list
