On 8/13/07, Bo Ørsted Andresen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Monday 13 August 2007 22:54:59 Mark Knecht wrote: > > > > > > > Maybe because of this: > > > > > > > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=125728#c29 > [SNIP] > > > Or you could read the link to bugs.gentoo.org in the top of this mail. Or > > > post the output from the stable version of revdep-rebuild --ignore. > > > > I did read it. It seemed that the stable revdep-rebuild solution was > > to start editing system files. I didn't want to do that as I don't > > know what they do. (Please remember, I am a DUMMY. I am NOT a computer > > scientist, a sys admin or a programmer. I used to design chips and now > > play music and trade stocks and options. I don't use ~x86 except when > > I have a reason. I suspect I'll just go back to stable and join the > > hordes looking for a fix to the stable version of revdep-rebuild.) > > No no no. It's gcc with the gcj use flag that's broken. The stable version of > revdep-rebuild is just showing you already existing breakage in gcc (or > inconsistency if you will). Editing those .la files or creating those > symlinks are proper solutions. Another solution if you don't need gcj anyway > is to disable that use flag.. >
Ah, OK, that's different. I looked up the gcj flag and got this: gcj Enable building with gcj (The GNU Compiler for the Javatm Programming Language) I don't know if I *need* it. I don't know how I would tell if I'm even using it today. Is thee some way for me to test whether I've ever compiled Java code with with gcc? I personally would guess that I haven't as it sounds like something you'd know if you were doing, but possibly portage builds something this way that I'm not aware of? Anyway, I don't *think* I need it so I'm happy to turn off the flag and test how things work with the stable version of gentoolkit. Thanks in advance, Mark -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
