-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

I am having a recurring error for the last few weeks

revdep-rebuild -p

* Configuring search environment for revdep-rebuild

* Checking reverse dependencies
* Packages containing binaries and libraries broken by a package
* update
* will be emerged.

* Collecting system binaries and libraries
* Generated new 1_files.rr
* Collecting complete LD_LIBRARY_PATH
* Generated new 2_ldpath.rr
* Checking dynamic linking consistency
[ 37% ] * broken
/usr/lib64/binutils/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/2.20/libbfd.la (requires
- -liberty)
* broken
* /usr/lib64/binutils/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/2.20/libopcodes.la
* (requires -liberty)
[ 100% ]
* Generated new 3_broken.rr
* Assigning files to packages
* /usr/lib64/binutils/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/2.20/libbfd.la
* -> sys-devel/binutils
* /usr/lib64/binutils/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/2.20/libopcodes.la
* -> sys-devel/binutils
* Generated new 4_raw.rr and 4_owners.rr
* Cleaning list of packages to rebuild
* Generated new 4_pkgs.rr
* Assigning packages to ebuilds
* Generated new 4_ebuilds.rr
* Evaluating package order
* Generated new 5_order.rr
* All prepared. Starting rebuild

emerge --oneshot --pretend sys-devel/binutils:0

I am not to sure how to go about trouble shooting this problem.
Everything seems to be running as usual aside from the revdep-rebuild
broken error.
- --
public key @
apartment415.homelinux.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (GNU/Linux)

iF4EAREIAAYFAktqdBgACgkQpSa/g4Qb1ZnXAwD/VSWifc6i99nZYmg7ke6jgR2N
KI4OUmMokkh+y50IksEA/3IRYTjAY8o7kVbMkQ6+u1xpjnXMRGB8QgPPe1jcSUk4
=KslU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Thursday 04 February 2010 09:15:36 Steven wrote:
> I am having a recurring error for the last few weeks
>
> revdep-rebuild -p
>
> * Configuring search environment for revdep-rebuild
>
> * Checking reverse dependencies
> * Packages containing binaries and libraries broken by a package
> * update
> * will be emerged.
>
> * Collecting system binaries and libraries
> * Generated new 1_files.rr
> * Collecting complete LD_LIBRARY_PATH
> * Generated new 2_ldpath.rr
> * Checking dynamic linking consistency
> [ 37% ] * broken
> /usr/lib64/binutils/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/2.20/libbfd.la (requires
> -liberty)
> * broken
> * /usr/lib64/binutils/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/2.20/libopcodes.la
> * (requires -liberty)
> [ 100% ]
> * Generated new 3_broken.rr
> * Assigning files to packages
> * /usr/lib64/binutils/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/2.20/libbfd.la
> * -> sys-devel/binutils
> * /usr/lib64/binutils/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/2.20/libopcodes.la
> * -> sys-devel/binutils
> * Generated new 4_raw.rr and 4_owners.rr
> * Cleaning list of packages to rebuild
> * Generated new 4_pkgs.rr
> * Assigning packages to ebuilds
> * Generated new 4_ebuilds.rr
> * Evaluating package order
> * Generated new 5_order.rr
> * All prepared. Starting rebuild
>
> emerge --oneshot --pretend sys-devel/binutils:0
>
> I am not to sure how to go about trouble shooting this problem.
> Everything seems to be running as usual aside from the revdep-rebuild
> broken error.
>

try

lafilefixer --justfixit

then try revdep-rebuild again

--
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

W dniu 04.02.2010 08:15, Steven pisze:
> I am having a recurring error for the last few weeks
>
> revdep-rebuild -p
>
> * Configuring search environment for revdep-rebuild
>
> * Checking reverse dependencies
> * Packages containing binaries and libraries broken by a package
> * update
> * will be emerged.
>
> * Collecting system binaries and libraries
> * Generated new 1_files.rr
> * Collecting complete LD_LIBRARY_PATH
> * Generated new 2_ldpath.rr
> * Checking dynamic linking consistency
> [ 37% ] * broken
> /usr/lib64/binutils/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/2.20/libbfd.la (requires
> -liberty)
> * broken
> * /usr/lib64/binutils/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/2.20/libopcodes.la
> * (requires -liberty)
> [ 100% ]
> * Generated new 3_broken.rr
> * Assigning files to packages
> * /usr/lib64/binutils/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/2.20/libbfd.la
> * -> sys-devel/binutils
> * /usr/lib64/binutils/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/2.20/libopcodes.la
> * -> sys-devel/binutils
> * Generated new 4_raw.rr and 4_owners.rr
> * Cleaning list of packages to rebuild
> * Generated new 4_pkgs.rr
> * Assigning packages to ebuilds
> * Generated new 4_ebuilds.rr
> * Evaluating package order
> * Generated new 5_order.rr
> * All prepared. Starting rebuild
>
> emerge --oneshot --pretend sys-devel/binutils:0
>
> I am not to sure how to go about trouble shooting this problem.
> Everything seems to be running as usual aside from the revdep-rebuild
> broken error.
Check if you have /etc/ld.so.conf.d/05binutils and not
/etc/env.d/00glibc ( this file should contain LDPATH="include
ld.so.conf.d/*.conf" ), if so - rebuild glibc. If this is not the case,
maybe try lafilefixer --justfixit.

HTH

On Thu, Feb 04, 2010 at 09:58:42AM +0100, Mariusz Ceier wrote:
> W dniu 04.02.2010 08:15, Steven pisze:
> > I am having a recurring error for the last few weeks
> >
> > revdep-rebuild -p
> >
> > * Configuring search environment for revdep-rebuild
> >
> > * Checking reverse dependencies
> > * Packages containing binaries and libraries broken by a package
> > * update
> > * will be emerged.
> >
> > * Collecting system binaries and libraries
> > * Generated new 1_files.rr
> > * Collecting complete LD_LIBRARY_PATH
> > * Generated new 2_ldpath.rr
> > * Checking dynamic linking consistency
> > [ 37% ] * broken
> > /usr/lib64/binutils/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/2.20/libbfd.la (requires
> > -liberty)
> > * broken
> > * /usr/lib64/binutils/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/2.20/libopcodes.la
> > * (requires -liberty)
> > [ 100% ]
> > * Generated new 3_broken.rr
> > * Assigning files to packages
> > * /usr/lib64/binutils/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/2.20/libbfd.la
> > * -> sys-devel/binutils
> > * /usr/lib64/binutils/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/2.20/libopcodes.la
> > * -> sys-devel/binutils
> > * Generated new 4_raw.rr and 4_owners.rr
> > * Cleaning list of packages to rebuild
> > * Generated new 4_pkgs.rr
> > * Assigning packages to ebuilds
> > * Generated new 4_ebuilds.rr
> > * Evaluating package order
> > * Generated new 5_order.rr
> > * All prepared. Starting rebuild
> >
> > emerge --oneshot --pretend sys-devel/binutils:0
> >
> > I am not to sure how to go about trouble shooting this problem.
> > Everything seems to be running as usual aside from the revdep-rebuild
> > broken error.
> Check if you have /etc/ld.so.conf.d/05binutils and not
> /etc/env.d/00glibc ( this file should contain LDPATH="include
> ld.so.conf.d/*.conf" ), if so - rebuild glibc. If this is not the case,
> maybe try lafilefixer --justfixit.
>
> HTH
>

I have the same problem and I think the problem is revdep-rebuild.
binutils is just working fine and revdep-rebuild just thinks that it is
broken, because it doesnt check the right librarypath
(/usr/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/lib). I tried your suggestion (rebuild glibc)
and it doesnt work. But I noticed something interesting:

cat /etc/ld.so.conf.d/05binutils.conf
/usr/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/lib

cat /etc/ld.so.conf
/usr/local/lib
include ld.so.conf.d/*.conf
[...]

I think this is normal. But when I start revdep-rebuild -v I get

revdep-rebuild environment:
SEARCH_DIRS="/bin
include
ld.so.conf.d/*.conf
/lib
/lib64
/opt/bin
[...]

So I guess the include-Statement should load the files under
ld.so.conf.d but it looks like its interpreted as a normal path

-Stefan

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 09:58/02/04/10, Mariusz Ceier wrote:
> W dniu 04.02.2010 08:15, Steven pisze:
> > I am having a recurring error for the last few weeks
> >
> > revdep-rebuild -p
> >
> > * Configuring search environment for revdep-rebuild
> >
> > * Checking reverse dependencies
> > * Packages containing binaries and libraries broken by a package
> > * update
> > * will be emerged.
> >
> > * Collecting system binaries and libraries
> > * Generated new 1_files.rr
> > * Collecting complete LD_LIBRARY_PATH
> > * Generated new 2_ldpath.rr
> > * Checking dynamic linking consistency
> > [ 37% ] * broken
> > /usr/lib64/binutils/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/2.20/libbfd.la (requires
> > -liberty)
> > * broken
> > * /usr/lib64/binutils/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/2.20/libopcodes.la
> > * (requires -liberty)
> > [ 100% ]
> > * Generated new 3_broken.rr
> > * Assigning files to packages
> > * /usr/lib64/binutils/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/2.20/libbfd.la
> > * -> sys-devel/binutils
> > * /usr/lib64/binutils/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/2.20/libopcodes.la
> > * -> sys-devel/binutils
> > * Generated new 4_raw.rr and 4_owners.rr
> > * Cleaning list of packages to rebuild
> > * Generated new 4_pkgs.rr
> > * Assigning packages to ebuilds
> > * Generated new 4_ebuilds.rr
> > * Evaluating package order
> > * Generated new 5_order.rr
> > * All prepared. Starting rebuild
> >
> > emerge --oneshot --pretend sys-devel/binutils:0
> >
> > I am not to sure how to go about trouble shooting this problem.
> > Everything seems to be running as usual aside from the revdep-rebuild
> > broken error.
> Check if you have /etc/ld.so.conf.d/05binutils and not
> /etc/env.d/00glibc ( this file should contain LDPATH="include
> ld.so.conf.d/*.conf" ), if so - rebuild glibc. If this is not the case,
> maybe try lafilefixer --justfixit.
>
> HTH

I tried all, and nothing seemed to solve the problem.
I'm at a loss as to what this could be.
When it says "requires -liberty" is liberty part of a package? I am not
sure what it means by -liberty and were to acquire it.

Anyways thanks for the help so far.
- --
public key @
apartment415.homelinux.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (GNU/Linux)

iF4EAREIAAYFAktqmnIACgkQpSa/g4Qb1ZnoMgD+ITaLS9dyio1GHnIXpaiM2vTV
p1aFRUNjURIbOAc3QFwBAMUwmVnQXEJQxVkOiknrOuIQ27RjGZ CdJ+BQx7ldQQ3W
=a3HI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Thu, Feb 04, 2010 at 01:59:14AM -0800, Steven wrote:
> I tried all, and nothing seemed to solve the problem.
> I'm at a loss as to what this could be.
> When it says "requires -liberty" is liberty part of a package? I am not
> sure what it means by -liberty and were to acquire it.

The library's name is iberty. The -l part is saying that it is a
library.

http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libiberty/

I don't have access to my gentoo computer at the moment, so I can't
tell you where that comes from. But it is probably from either glibc,
gcc, or libstdc++. I expect the previous poster who told you to
remerge glibc knew the answer

But if I am reading revdep-rebuild output correctly, it means that
your binutils is compiled to be linked against that library. But the
library cannot be found by revdep-rebuild. Hence the error.

W
--
Willie W. Wong wwong@math.princeton.edu
Data aequatione quotcunque fluentes quantitae involvente fluxiones invenire
et vice versa ~~~ I. Newton

W dniu 04.02.2010 12:45, Willie Wong pisze:
> On Thu, Feb 04, 2010 at 01:59:14AM -0800, Steven wrote:
>> I tried all, and nothing seemed to solve the problem.
>> I'm at a loss as to what this could be.
>> When it says "requires -liberty" is liberty part of a package? I am not
>> sure what it means by -liberty and were to acquire it.
>
> The library's name is iberty. The -l part is saying that it is a
> library.
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libiberty/
>
> I don't have access to my gentoo computer at the moment, so I can't
> tell you where that comes from. But it is probably from either glibc,
> gcc, or libstdc++. I expect the previous poster who told you to
> remerge glibc knew the answer
>
> But if I am reading revdep-rebuild output correctly, it means that
> your binutils is compiled to be linked against that library. But the
> library cannot be found by revdep-rebuild. Hence the error.
>
> W
libiberty.a comes from binutils.
Looking at Stefan revdep-rebuild environment output it seems that
revdep-rebuild doesn't handle 'include wildcard' statements in
ld.so.conf. This bug is already reported #298651.

Mariusz Ceier

Mariusz Ceier <mceier@gmail.com> writes:

>> But if I am reading revdep-rebuild output correctly, it means that
>> your binutils is compiled to be linked against that library. But the
>> library cannot be found by revdep-rebuild. Hence the error.
>>
>> W
> libiberty.a comes from binutils.
> Looking at Stefan revdep-rebuild environment output it seems that
> revdep-rebuild doesn't handle 'include wildcard' statements in
> ld.so.conf. This bug is already reported #298651.
>
> Mariusz Ceier

Much of the conversation on bugzilla went over my head
Is there a known workaround a non-developer or non-tech-genius might employ?