On Sunday 09 May 2010, walt wrote:
>
> This looks to me like a major portage screwup. I see that on my ~amd64
> machine I have both versions of libpng, but the 1.2.43-r1 doesn't install
> a pkg-config file because 1.4.2 installs one with the same name, and just
> as bad, version 1.2.43-r1 removed the libpng12 header files.
>
> For now, I'd suggest just going back to to 1.2.43 if you can -- maybe mask
>
> >1.2.43 in package.mask?
>
> Meanwhile I'm trying to fix firefox so I can read the bug report mentioned
> by Andras.

well I'm getting into a .la hell...
you need to rebuild packages which are themselves not invalid and therefore
can't be found by revdep-rebuild...

searching with "grep png12 `find /usr/lib64/ -name '*.la'`" lists all .la
files with a bad png version, rebuilding those will fix the system. after that
all packages found by revdep-rebuild can be emerged.

Rudmer

On Sonntag 09 Mai 2010, Rudmer van Dijk wrote:
> On Sunday 09 May 2010, walt wrote:
> > This looks to me like a major portage screwup. I see that on my ~amd64
> > machine I have both versions of libpng, but the 1.2.43-r1 doesn't install
> > a pkg-config file because 1.4.2 installs one with the same name, and just
> > as bad, version 1.2.43-r1 removed the libpng12 header files.
> >
> > For now, I'd suggest just going back to to 1.2.43 if you can -- maybe
> > mask
> >
> > >1.2.43 in package.mask?
> >
> > Meanwhile I'm trying to fix firefox so I can read the bug report
> > mentioned by Andras.
>
> well I'm getting into a .la hell...
> you need to rebuild packages which are themselves not invalid and therefore
> can't be found by revdep-rebuild...
>
> searching with "grep png12 `find /usr/lib64/ -name '*.la'`" lists all .la
> files with a bad png version, rebuilding those will fix the system. after
> that all packages found by revdep-rebuild can be emerged.
>
> Rudmer

run la fixer

and op:
deinstall libpng1.2

and walt:
preserved libs. Look into it.

On 05/09/2010 10:37 AM, Rudmer van Dijk wrote:

On Sunday 09 May 2010, walt wrote:


This looks to me like a major portage screwup. I see that on my ~amd64
machine I have both versions of libpng, but the 1.2.43-r1 doesn't install
a pkg-config file because 1.4.2 installs one with the same name, and just
as bad, version 1.2.43-r1 removed the libpng12 header files.

For now, I'd suggest just going back to to 1.2.40 if you can -- maybe mask

>1.2.40 in package.mask?


I should have said 1.2.40 instead of 1.2.43, sorry


Meanwhile I'm trying to fix firefox so I can read the bug report mentioned
by Andras.


well I'm getting into a .la hell...
you need to rebuild packages which are themselves not invalid and therefore
can't be found by revdep-rebuild...

searching with "grep png12 `find /usr/lib64/ -name '*.la'`" lists all .la

^^
I think the png12 should be png14 instead. We need to go backwards by re-
building the packages that have already been linked against libpng-1.4.2
(which we are removing until it's fixed).


files with a bad png version, rebuilding those will fix the system. after that
all packages found by revdep-rebuild can be emerged.

Rudmer

On Sunday 09 May 2010, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> On Sonntag 09 Mai 2010, Rudmer van Dijk wrote:
> > On Sunday 09 May 2010, walt wrote:
> > > This looks to me like a major portage screwup. I see that on my ~amd64
> > > machine I have both versions of libpng, but the 1.2.43-r1 doesn't
> > > install a pkg-config file because 1.4.2 installs one with the same
> > > name, and just as bad, version 1.2.43-r1 removed the libpng12 header
> > > files.
> > >
> > > For now, I'd suggest just going back to to 1.2.43 if you can -- maybe
> > > mask
> > >
> > > >1.2.43 in package.mask?
> > >
> > > Meanwhile I'm trying to fix firefox so I can read the bug report
> > > mentioned by Andras.
> >
> > well I'm getting into a .la hell...
> > you need to rebuild packages which are themselves not invalid and
> > therefore can't be found by revdep-rebuild...
> >
> > searching with "grep png12 `find /usr/lib64/ -name '*.la'`" lists all .la
> > files with a bad png version, rebuilding those will fix the system. after
> > that all packages found by revdep-rebuild can be emerged.
> >
> > Rudmer
>
> run la fixer

ah, yes I knew there was something easier 8-)
well running `lafilefixer --justfixit` did not find anything so I got them all

thanks!

Rudmer

On 05/09/2010 11:54 AM, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:


and walt:
preserved libs. Look into it.


A long time ago, maybe one or two years ago, an occasional package
would suggest that I should run emerge @preserved-rebuild to rebuild
packages that are linked to obsolete libraries.

This worked very well for a few months, and then those suggestions
suddenly stopped coming.

Since then, emerge @preserved-rebuild (or @preserved-libs) says this:

#emerge @preserved-rebuild
!!! '@preserved-rebuild' is not a valid package atom.
!!! Please check ebuild(5) for full details.

I get the same error on my x86 and ~amd64 machines, i.e. with either
baselayout-1 or baselayout-2. The man pages for ebuild, emerge,
portage, and make.conf say nothing about 'preserved'.

Anyone have an idea what changed, or what I'm doing wrong?

walt wrote:

On 05/09/2010 11:54 AM, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:


and walt:
preserved libs. Look into it.


A long time ago, maybe one or two years ago, an occasional package
would suggest that I should run emerge @preserved-rebuild to rebuild
packages that are linked to obsolete libraries.

This worked very well for a few months, and then those suggestions
suddenly stopped coming.

Since then, emerge @preserved-rebuild (or @preserved-libs) says this:

#emerge @preserved-rebuild
!!! '@preserved-rebuild' is not a valid package atom.
!!! Please check ebuild(5) for full details.

I get the same error on my x86 and ~amd64 machines, i.e. with either
baselayout-1 or baselayout-2. The man pages for ebuild, emerge,
portage, and make.conf say nothing about 'preserved'.

Anyone have an idea what changed, or what I'm doing wrong?




I thought at first maybe there was nothing to be rebuilt so I ran the
command to see if I get the same thing but I get this:


root@smoker ~ # emerge @preserved-rebuild
emerge: 'preserved-rebuild' is an empty set
emerge: no targets left after set expansion
root@smoker ~ #

So, it's not that you don't have anything to rebuild but that portage
doesn't seem to understand what you are telling it to do. Also, I get a
message pretty regular to rebuild packages, usually OOo of course. lol
Maybe the things you have installed doesn't require rebuilding so much?
I have KDE for my desktop and between that and OOo, there is usually
something to be rebuilt.


I got a list of the sets that portage is supposed to recognize, this is
the list. Please pardon the way I got it. I can't recall the correct
way and just made it something I knew didn't exist.


root@smoker ~ # emerge @preserved
emerge: There are no sets to satisfy 'preserved'. The following sets exist:

downgrade
installed
kde-3.5
live-rebuild
module-rebuild
preserved-rebuild
rebuilt-binaries
security
selected
system
unavailable
world

root@smoker ~ #

You should have those less the kde-3.5, that one is homemade.

Dale

:-) :-)

Curious about that unavailable one tho. o_O If it is unavailable, why
have it?

On Sun, 09 May 2010 18:11:06 -0700, walt wrote:

> This worked very well for a few months, and then those suggestions
> suddenly stopped coming.
>
> Since then, emerge @preserved-rebuild (or @preserved-libs) says this:
>
> #emerge @preserved-rebuild
> !!! '@preserved-rebuild' is not a valid package atom.
> !!! Please check ebuild(5) for full details.

portage 2.2 was masked to force testing of the older version. Unless you
unmasked it, you will have downgraded to a version that does not support
sets, which would give this message.


--
Neil Bothwick

Set phasers to extreme itching!

On Sonntag 09 Mai 2010, Rudmer van Dijk wrote:
> On Sunday 09 May 2010, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> > On Sonntag 09 Mai 2010, Rudmer van Dijk wrote:
> > > On Sunday 09 May 2010, walt wrote:
> > > > This looks to me like a major portage screwup. I see that on my
> > > > ~amd64 machine I have both versions of libpng, but the 1.2.43-r1
> > > > doesn't install a pkg-config file because 1.4.2 installs one with
> > > > the same name, and just as bad, version 1.2.43-r1 removed the
> > > > libpng12 header files.
> > > >
> > > > For now, I'd suggest just going back to to 1.2.43 if you can -- maybe
> > > > mask
> > > >
> > > > >1.2.43 in package.mask?
> > > >
> > > > Meanwhile I'm trying to fix firefox so I can read the bug report
> > > > mentioned by Andras.
> > >
> > > well I'm getting into a .la hell...
> > > you need to rebuild packages which are themselves not invalid and
> > > therefore can't be found by revdep-rebuild...
> > >
> > > searching with "grep png12 `find /usr/lib64/ -name '*.la'`" lists all
> > > .la files with a bad png version, rebuilding those will fix the
> > > system. after that all packages found by revdep-rebuild can be
> > > emerged.
> > >
> > > Rudmer
> >
> > run la fixer
>
> ah, yes I knew there was something easier 8-)
> well running `lafilefixer --justfixit` did not find anything so I got them
> all
>
> thanks!
>
> Rudmer

sadly, it does not get them all.
The only save way:
grep -R for png12 and remerge all packages whose files pop up.

For example revdep-rebuilt failed to rebuild pygtk - because of glade. But it
never tried to rebuild glade...

On Monday 10 May 2010 23:27:12 Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> On Sonntag 09 Mai 2010, Rudmer van Dijk wrote:
> > On Sunday 09 May 2010, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> > > On Sonntag 09 Mai 2010, Rudmer van Dijk wrote:
> > > > On Sunday 09 May 2010, walt wrote:
> > > > > This looks to me like a major portage screwup. I see that on my
> > > > > ~amd64 machine I have both versions of libpng, but the 1.2.43-r1
> > > > > doesn't install a pkg-config file because 1.4.2 installs one with
> > > > > the same name, and just as bad, version 1.2.43-r1 removed the
> > > > > libpng12 header files.
> > > > >
> > > > > For now, I'd suggest just going back to to 1.2.43 if you can --
> > > > > maybe mask
> > > > >
> > > > > >1.2.43 in package.mask?
> > > > >
> > > > > Meanwhile I'm trying to fix firefox so I can read the bug report
> > > > > mentioned by Andras.
> > > >
> > > > well I'm getting into a .la hell...
> > > > you need to rebuild packages which are themselves not invalid and
> > > > therefore can't be found by revdep-rebuild...
> > > >
> > > > searching with "grep png12 `find /usr/lib64/ -name '*.la'`" lists all
> > > > .la files with a bad png version, rebuilding those will fix the
> > > > system. after that all packages found by revdep-rebuild can be
> > > > emerged.
> > > >
> > > > Rudmer
> > >
> > > run la fixer
> >
> > ah, yes I knew there was something easier 8-)
> > well running `lafilefixer --justfixit` did not find anything so I got
> > them all
> >
> > thanks!
> >
> > Rudmer
>
> sadly, it does not get them all.
> The only save way:
> grep -R for png12 and remerge all packages whose files pop up.
>
> For example revdep-rebuilt failed to rebuild pygtk - because of glade. But
> it never tried to rebuild glade...

Shall I wait to update my box until a safe way through all this is
established? I can't afford to break things right now.
--
Regards,
Mick

On Tue, 11 May 2010 06:51:39 +0100, Mick wrote:

> Shall I wait to update my box until a safe way through all this is
> established? I can't afford to break things right now.

Yes. While I updated my netbook successfully, there are still a number of
packages that won't rebuild on my desktop. Sometimes you can look at the
build failure and see that another package, that revdep-rebuild missed,
needs an update, but not always.

On the other hand, nothing KDE4 seems affected, it's mainly
GTK/glade/pango/cairo stuff that's affected, so you would probably get
away with it on a pure KDE4 box.


--
Neil Bothwick

WinErr 003: Dynamic linking error - Your mistake is now in every file