On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 10:03 AM, Mark Knecht <markkne...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 9:58 AM, Neil Bothwick <n...@digimed.co.uk> wrote: > > On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 09:51:32 -0800, Mark Knecht wrote: > > > >> I guess then that the constant messages about doing an emerge > >> @preserved-rebuild aren't necessarily to be followed, or at least not > >> worried about if they fail as whatever program needs the libraries > >> still has the old versions? > > > > They should be followed and the problem fixed. Not only is it untidy > > leaving old copies of libraries around but, as Volker says, the old > > versions can prevent revdep-rebuild working correctly. > > > > > > -- > > Neil Bothwick > > Right now I'm seeing that @preserved-rebuild and revdep-rebuild want > to do different things. revdep-rebuild is rebuilding nss which may or > may not fail. @preserved-rebuild wanted to rebuild eveolution which > did fail. > I would suggest performing the revdep-rebuild first, then doing the @preserved-rebuild - if revdep-rebuild is coming up with broken packages, those broken packages can actually prevent other packages (such as evolution) from building properly. -James > > I'm somewhat unclear as to how to proceed. Using emerge is currently > telling me I should do an emerge -e world to fully take advantage of > new features in portage-2.2. I guess that message wouldn't be there > unless it was really a good thing to do but that's a lot of downtime > for me. > > - Mark > >
