On Monday 02 November 2009 15:58:57 Jesús Guerrero wrote: > On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 13:25:08 +0000, Neil Bothwick <n...@digimed.co.uk> > > wrote: > > On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 13:58:03 +0100, Jesús Guerrero wrote: > >> @preserved-rebuild never worked for me, maybe it's just that it doesn't > >> like ~arch. I am just too lazy to work on how to fix a thing when > >> there's an alternative that always worked reliably, revdep-rebuild. > > > > If it didn't work on ~arch, how would it ever make it into arch? > > I am not the one to answer that, all I can say is that the few times I've > tried it, it kept rebuilding the same packages again, and again, and again > ad infinitum, as said, I didn't even bother to find what the problem was, > because I have a working alternative. Sure it could be better, but that > hasn't been the case for me with @preserved-rebuild. > > I've seen people reporting the same problems in the forums, so I am fairly > sure that's a common problem and not just exclusive to my installations. > > > The trouble with revdep-rebuild is that you have to break your system > > and > > > then fix it. Most of the time this is trivial, but updates like > > expat-2.0 > > > showed the usefulness of being able to recompile the packages before > > they > > > were broken. > > I can't understand that. You CAN'T recompile your packages against the new > ABI's until the new ABI is in your system, and hence your system is already > broken. There's no preemptive measure against this. Both methods fix the > system *after* it's broken.
Unless the old and the new ABI version are installed side by side. When @preserved-rebuild is run, it deletes the old libs only after everything left that used it is now linked against the new one. There's only one case where this can't work - the developer changes the ABI and does not change the .so version number. That ain't gentoo's fault - shoot the developer. -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
