>>>> I've hit a bug that won't let me start an xfce4 session. I think it >>>> was caused by upgrading glibc, and it is pretty well described in this >>>> nearly 4-year-old bug: >>>> >>>> http://bugs.gentoo.org/125909 >>>> >>>> The solution is presented as: >>>> >>>> qlist -o $(qlist -ICv) | scanelf -Bs__guard -qf - -F%F#s | xargs qfile >>>> >>>> but I get: >>>> >>>> qlist: invalid option -- 'l' >>>> qlist: invalid option -- '[' >>>> >>>> Removing the -l fixes the first invalid option, but I don't know how >>>> to fix the second. Does anyone know how to rewrite this command so it >>>> will work? >>> >>> >>> I can't see how you can get those errors, unless you have a broken qlist >>> that >>> is outputing something dodgy from the "qlist -ICv" >>> >>> If it persists, copy-paste your input and the output from your terminal >>> into a >>> mail. Or run >>> >>> qlist -o $(qlist -ICv) | less >>> >>> and examine that closely for errors >> >> I was making a transcription error before, but after correcting it, it >> still doesn't work: >> >> # qlist -o $(qlist -ICv) | scanelf -Bs__guard -qf - -F%F#s | xargs qfile >> Usage: qfile <opts> <filename> : list all pkgs owning files >> >> Options: -[ef:m:oRx:vqChV] >> -e, --exact * Exact match >> -f, --from <arg> * Read arguments from file <arg> ("-" for stdin) >> -m, --max-args <arg> * Treat from file arguments by groups of <arg> >> (defaults to 5000) >> -o, --orphans * List orphan files >> -R, --root-prefix * Assume arguments are already prefixed by $ROOT >> -x, --exclude <arg> * Don't look in package <arg> >> -v, --verbose * Make a lot of noise >> -q, --quiet * Tighter output; suppress warnings >> -C, --nocolor * Don't output color >> -h, --help * Print this help and exit >> -V, --version * Print version and exit >> >> Does anyone know what might be wrong? > > Solar's one-liner is likely working perfectly here. The one-liner just > doesn't find any binaries with the ancient SSP symbol, and thus args > for qfile are empty -- leading into qfile printing its usage. > > Everything seems to be just fine there, so we might need to back up to > the point where you decided that this bug was a match for your > problem. Did you get the same error? From which program exactly? Have > you installed binaries that are not in portage's installed files' > lists?
Thanks guys, I'm just going to emerge -e world and move on. :) - Grant
