On Sat, 2018-01-06 at 23:42 +0200, zless wrote:
> În ziua de sâmbătă, 6 ianuarie 2018, la 23:25:32 EET, Hartmut Figge a
> scris:
> > zless:
> > > Could you also take a look at the file
> > > /var/lib/portage/preserved_libs_registry ?
> >
> > hafi@i5-64 ~ $ cat /var/lib/portage/preserved_libs_registry
> > {
> > "sys-libs/readline:0": [
> > "sys-libs/readline-7.0_p3",
> > "10658",
> > [
> > "/lib64/libreadline.so.6.3",
> > "/lib64/libreadline.so.6"
> > ]
> > ]
> >
>
> To me this reads as readline-7.0_p3 depends on libs from readline-
> 6.3.
>
> Smells a bit as some sort of bug. Try rebuilding readline?
>
> This didn't happen here when readline was bumped.
This is no bug here. It's just storing the fact that it preserved these
/lib64/libreadline.so.6{,.3} under the replacing newer version package.
That is, readline-7.0_p3 now owns these files, but based on this
registry, they will be deleted and removed from its CONTENTS, once
there are no more consumers of it based on essentially NEEDED.ELF.2
contents in the VDB (/var/db/pkg/*/*/NEEDED.ELF.2).
That is, what is keeping them from being removed is not stored in this
registry.
> > > It's like this when there are no preserved libs:
> > >
> > > # cat preserved_libs_registry
> >
> > I'm currently running 'find . -name '*preserved*' on / in the hope
> > of
> > finding the set with the preserverd libs *g* Well, I will let it
> > continue.
Maybe there is just an old ruby:2.1 SLOT installed, that hasn't been
properly depcleaned?
Mart
