Hi, Maybe a better way is to emerge hard-masked "gentoolkit-0.2.1_pre3" (cause it's only tested on x86). In it there is a new version on 'revdep-rebuild' which allows you to mask certain dirs, by using (mine): ... SEARCH_DIRS_MASK="/home /mnt /opt/sun-jdk /opt/vmware/lib /opt/OpenOffice" ... For more info search for 'revdep-rebuild' on Bugzilla. There one with a new version (attached) Think it is the same? version of revdep-rebuild as in the hard-masked gentoolkit. HTH. Rumen Wade Brown wrote:
>Liar! Well, we forgive you, I think =). > >Actually the better (Gentoo suggested) way to squelch these packages >is to exclude /opt from the search path in the revdep-rebuild script. >Just do EDITOR `which revdep-rebuild` and take /opt out of the >SEARCH_DIRS, most anything that goes in there should be a binary >release, but sadly not every binary package ends up in there >(azureus-bin comes to mind). > >On 6/16/05, Zac Medico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>Zac Medico wrote: >> >> >>>Mark Knecht wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>On 6/16/05, Neil Bothwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 22:34:51 -0700, Mark Knecht wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>Please correct me if I'm wrong but if what revdep-rebuild does is >>>>>>important then I want to kow about any program on my system that >>>>>>doesn't have all it's dependencies met, right? Seems that OO-bin has >>>>>>this problem and, unless I find out what USE flags the -bi versio was >>>>>>built with and match them in my setup then I'm going to be subject to >>>>>>a problem. (possibly...) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>revdep-rebuild is irrelevant to ooo-bin, and others, because you cannot >>>>>rebuild a binary package. All it does is reinstall the same binary, not >>>>>build a new one. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>Right, but.....the errors within revdep-rebuild are not irrelivant to >>>>a user who's just run revdep-rebuild and has to sort through a number >>>>of errors to decide what to do. My point was that I'd like to know how >>>>my copy of oo-bin was built/linked so that I could (possibly) set my >>>>systems up so that everything is 100% cool. >>>> >>>>It's only slightly frustrating to deal with that. Not a big deal. And >>>>since oo-bin hasn't crashed on me in quite awhile it would seem that >>>>whatever the dependency issues are they aren't serious. >>>> >>>>thanks, >>>>Mark >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>At least on my system, the problem with openoffice-bin-1.9.104 isn't >>>actually broken dynamic links. It's just that ldd complains "ldd: warning: >>>you do not have execution permission for `something.so'" for these files: >>> >>>/opt/OpenOffice.org/program/python-core-2.3.4/lib/lib-dynload/_bsddb.so >>>/opt/OpenOffice.org/program/python-core-2.3.4/lib/lib-dynload/_tkinter.so >>>/opt/OpenOffice.org/program/python-core-2.3.4/lib/lib-dynload/bz2.so >>>/opt/OpenOffice.org/program/python-core-2.3.4/lib/lib-dynload/dbm.so >>>/opt/OpenOffice.org/program/python-core-2.3.4/lib/lib-dynload/gdbm.so >>>/opt/OpenOffice.org/program/python-core-2.3.4/lib/lib-dynload/readline.so >>> >>>If I chmod +x those files then it stops complaining. >>> >>> >>> >>I lied, there really are broken dynamic links :-). >> >>-- >>gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list >> >> >> >> > > >
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
