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 <some-library> will find nothing. This guarantee is apparently no long true as my example in another msg illustrated. allan
