At Sun, 20 Feb 2005 17:14:31 +0100 Holly Bostick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> At Sun, 20 Feb 2005 14:49:16 +0100 Holly Bostick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> 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 understand that, but on the other hand, nothing is apparently broken > on your system requiring a rebuild in the first place. In my > experience, if a rebuild has already been performed to fix actually > broken stuff (this may be the defining factor), and OO.o is present > (usually as a binary, but I have also compiled it from source, but I > use OO.o-ximian, so maybe that's it as well), OO.o will always come up > on the "check" rebuild (the second one you do to make sure that > everything got done on the first one). I have needed revdep-rebuild to rebuild some things in the past and it has (thankfully) never suggested OO.o. You mention -ximian; perhaps that is the key difference or perhaps at that time you had OO.o binary. I have always compiled it from source; indeed I only use binaries when sources are not available, e.g., nvidia. allan -- [email protected] mailing list
