Holly Bostick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: [...]
>> Harry responds: >> >> Ack, yes of course and it even warns you about that >> >> However having removed them I still get a huge list of stuff listed >> as BROKEN > > Yes, well, that's what revdep-rebuild does-- finds broken stuff. It's > doing its job-- what's the problem with that? I think you may have read into that something I didn't mean. The problem is that there is lots of broken stuff not that revdep finds it. I posted an incomplete output. It needed pruning alright but I pruned the wrong stuff. Just posted a better output. >> One of the first involves the same mjpeg package that isn't even >> installed: >> >> broken /usr/bin/cinelerra (requires libmjpegutils-1.6.so.0) > Ummmm--- why do you feel that this is the "same package that isn't even > installed"? You said that you have libmjpegutils installed, just not the > same version that was attempting to be rebuilt before 1.8.0 installed, > rather than the 1.6.2-r3 that was attempting to be rebuilt). So then isn't that a package that IS NOT installed. I mean a version difference is what makes a package a different package ... right? > eix mjpegtools > * media-video/mjpegtools > Available versions: 1.6.2-r4 ~1.8.0 ~1.8.0-r1 > Installed: 1.6.2-r4 > Homepage: http://mjpeg.sourceforge.net/ > Description: Tools for MJPEG video > > equery files media-video/mjpegtools > [ Searching for packages matching media-video/mjpegtools... ] > * Contents of media-video/mjpegtools-1.6.2-r4: > > /usr/lib/libmjpegutils-1.6.so.0 -> libmjpegutils-1.6.so.0.2.2 > > Now, obviously this is not the same version of mjpegtools that you have, > but what it indicates is that the "file" libmjpegutils-1.6.so.0 is a > symlink to whatever version of the actual library is installed by the > package. > > I rather expect that what would happen if I were to upgrade this package > is that the symlink itself would remain, but the target of the symlink > would change. > > If this is in fact the case, two points: > > 1: your symlink seems to be broken; > 2: the error you have listed does not say anything about what version of > mjpegtools is installed or broken, so revdep-rebuild is not necessarily > talking about the same version as previously, > > > But better to go to the source: >> >> ================================== Full output of revdep-rebuild >> (minus all config make stuff [sorry about control chars I forgot to >> use -nc but have removed some]): >> >> Note it doesn't appear to say what pkg actually failed: >> >> >> Evaluating package order... done. (/root/.revdep-rebuild.5_order) >> >> All prepared. Starting rebuild.. emerge --oneshot >> =dev-php/mod_php-4.4.0 =dev-php/php-4.4.0 =media-libs/imlib-1.9.14-r3 >> =kde-base/kdegraphics-3.4.1-r1 =media-gfx/imagemagick-6.2.5.4 >> =media-libs/libdv-0.102 =media-video/avifile-0.7.41.20041001-r1 >> =media-video/cinelerra-cvs-20050801 =media-video/transcode-0.6.14-r2 >> =net-libs/libwww-5.4.0-r3 ^G.^G.^G.^G.^G.^G.^G.^G.^G.^G. >> >> ------8< [big snip] -------------------- >> >> you have the following choices: >> >> - if emerge failed during the build, fix the problems and re-run >> revdep-rebuild > > So apparently the rebuild failed. > > But first of all, I don't see mjpegtools being rebuilt in this list, so > that is not the problem apparently (the problem is not that mjpegtools > is not installed, but that the programs that depend on it are not linked > against it, which is what revdep-rebuild is trying to fix by re-emerging > them); > > ... and second of all, which package failed to emerge and why? > Meaning, what was the error in whichever package failed to emerge? I may have lost it or something but I made a cut and paste error on the above and have since posted a better output. I do have the entire output and should perhaps post it online. http://www.jtan.com/~reader/vu_txt/display.shtml Coming up shortly. (5min) -- [email protected] mailing list
