On Mon, 2005-05-30 at 21:35 -0700, Mark Knecht wrote: > On 5/30/05, Ow Mun Heng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mon, 2005-05-30 at 10:13 -0700, Mark Knecht wrote: > > > > On 5/30/05, Ow Mun Heng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think those binary packages > > > > propagate into /var/db as well. (IF they do, I think they might not > > > > reflect the actual USE flags used to built the binary. > > > > > > This probably accounts for revdep-rebuild never getting it quite right > > > for binary packages like openoffice-bin and always wanting to > > > re-emerge it again? > > > > > > > So.. I'm not the only one who gets that. (and I always thought it was > > some gremlins) > > > > Perhaps one can ask chinstrap.alternating.net since they do host binary > > packages > > > > No, you're not the only one. I wondered a bit about this a few weeks > ago and found a number of comments in the forums and Bugzilla that > revdep-rebuild doesn't work very well yet for binary packages. I see > this with openoffice-bin and thunderbird-bin. > > It seems logical that if I don't know the flags used for a binary > build that somewhere along the way I'm going to miss some dependency > on my system.
Actually, revdep-rebuild doesn't care about USE flags or /var/db at all. All it checks is that the dynamic linking can be satisfied. With the exception of openoffice-bin, when revdep-rebuild indicates that it wants to rebuild a -bin package it means that the ebuild is potentially missing dependencies. The reason that I state potentially is that sometimes the libraries are placed in a non-standard place by the ebuild and revdep-rebuild is unaware of that non-standard location when checking the dynamic linking. I'm currently working on updating revdep-rebuild so that it will be easier to configure for both users and developers. Regards, Paul -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
