FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Gentoo > Gentoo User

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 05-21-2012, 05:28 PM
Thanasis
 
Default ebuild log suggests to remove old libraries

After a recent update of dev-libs/libffi from version 3.0.10 to 3.0.11
the ebuild log suggests to run:

# revdep-rebuild --library '/usr/lib64/libffi.so.5'

and once finished running revdep-rebuild, it should be safe to
delete the old libraries, like so:

# rm '/usr/lib64/libffi.so.5'

However by querying:

equery b /usr/lib/libffi.so.5
* Searching for /usr/lib/libffi.so.5 ...
dev-libs/libffi-3.0.11 (/usr/lib64/libffi.so.5)

we see that /usr/lib64/libffi.so.5 is reported as belonging to
dev-libs/libffi-3.0.11. Is that normal?
 
Old 05-21-2012, 05:49 PM
Michael Mol
 
Default ebuild log suggests to remove old libraries

On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 1:28 PM, Thanasis <thanasis@asyr.hopto.org> wrote:
> After a recent update of dev-libs/libffi from version 3.0.10 to 3.0.11
> the ebuild log suggests to run:
>
> *# revdep-rebuild --library '/usr/lib64/libffi.so.5'
>
> and once finished running revdep-rebuild, it should be safe to
> delete the old libraries, like so:
>
> *# rm '/usr/lib64/libffi.so.5'
>
> However by querying:
>
> equery b /usr/lib/libffi.so.5
> ** Searching for /usr/lib/libffi.so.5 ...
> dev-libs/libffi-3.0.11 (/usr/lib64/libffi.so.5)
>
> we see that /usr/lib64/libffi.so.5 is reported as belonging to
> dev-libs/libffi-3.0.11. Is that normal?

I think so. It might be clearer if equery omitted the version number,
or if it tracked which versions of a package a file belonged to.

(If I'm wrong, then I suspect you found a bug)


--
:wq
 
Old 05-21-2012, 06:16 PM
Thanasis
 
Default ebuild log suggests to remove old libraries

on 05/21/2012 08:49 PM Michael Mol wrote the following:
> On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 1:28 PM, Thanasis <thanasis@asyr.hopto.org> wrote:
>> After a recent update of dev-libs/libffi from version 3.0.10 to 3.0.11
>> the ebuild log suggests to run:
>>
>> # revdep-rebuild --library '/usr/lib64/libffi.so.5'
>>
>> and once finished running revdep-rebuild, it should be safe to
>> delete the old libraries, like so:
>>
>> # rm '/usr/lib64/libffi.so.5'
>>
>> However by querying:
>>
>> equery b /usr/lib/libffi.so.5
>> * Searching for /usr/lib/libffi.so.5 ...
>> dev-libs/libffi-3.0.11 (/usr/lib64/libffi.so.5)
>>
>> we see that /usr/lib64/libffi.so.5 is reported as belonging to
>> dev-libs/libffi-3.0.11. Is that normal?
>
> I think so. It might be clearer if equery omitted the version number,
> or if it tracked which versions of a package a file belonged to.

So, are you saying that libffi.so.5 does *not* actually belong to
dev-libs/libffi-3.0.11 ?

>
> (If I'm wrong, then I suspect you found a bug)
>
>
 
Old 05-21-2012, 06:29 PM
Michael Mol
 
Default ebuild log suggests to remove old libraries

On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Thanasis <thanasis@asyr.hopto.org> wrote:
> on 05/21/2012 08:49 PM Michael Mol wrote the following:
>> On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 1:28 PM, Thanasis <thanasis@asyr.hopto.org> wrote:
>>> After a recent update of dev-libs/libffi from version 3.0.10 to 3.0.11
>>> the ebuild log suggests to run:
>>>
>>> *# revdep-rebuild --library '/usr/lib64/libffi.so.5'
>>>
>>> and once finished running revdep-rebuild, it should be safe to
>>> delete the old libraries, like so:
>>>
>>> *# rm '/usr/lib64/libffi.so.5'
>>>
>>> However by querying:
>>>
>>> equery b /usr/lib/libffi.so.5
>>> ** Searching for /usr/lib/libffi.so.5 ...
>>> dev-libs/libffi-3.0.11 (/usr/lib64/libffi.so.5)
>>>
>>> we see that /usr/lib64/libffi.so.5 is reported as belonging to
>>> dev-libs/libffi-3.0.11. Is that normal?
>>
>> I think so. It might be clearer if equery omitted the version number,
>> or if it tracked which versions of a package a file belonged to.
>
> So, are you saying that libffi.so.5 does *not* actually belong to
> dev-libs/libffi-3.0.11 ?

I would be shocked if it were generated by that absolute atom, if
that's what you mean. I think it's valid to expect it was generated by
an old version of that package.

If anything, it's probably most precise to say that libffi.so.5
belongs to dev-libs/libffi, but not to any version either in your
world file nor pulled in as a dependency by something else. (Saying
"it doesn't belong to any currently-installed version of a
currently-installed package" is ambiguous, depending on whether you
count the file's presence as meaning that the older version is
installed.)

All said, though, I've never bothered to run "equery b" on something
portage told me was an obsolete version of a library. I always run
revdep-rebuild, and then remove the old version, as the instructions
say.

--
:wq
 
Old 05-21-2012, 06:52 PM
Markos Chandras
 
Default ebuild log suggests to remove old libraries

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On 05/21/2012 07:16 PM, Thanasis wrote:
> on 05/21/2012 08:49 PM Michael Mol wrote the following:
>> On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 1:28 PM, Thanasis
>> <thanasis@asyr.hopto.org> wrote:
>>> After a recent update of dev-libs/libffi from version 3.0.10 to
>>> 3.0.11 the ebuild log suggests to run:
>>>
>>> # revdep-rebuild --library '/usr/lib64/libffi.so.5'
>>>
>>> and once finished running revdep-rebuild, it should be safe to
>>> delete the old libraries, like so:
>>>
>>> # rm '/usr/lib64/libffi.so.5'
>>>
>>> However by querying:
>>>
>>> equery b /usr/lib/libffi.so.5 * Searching for
>>> /usr/lib/libffi.so.5 ... dev-libs/libffi-3.0.11
>>> (/usr/lib64/libffi.so.5)
>>>
>>> we see that /usr/lib64/libffi.so.5 is reported as belonging to
>>> dev-libs/libffi-3.0.11. Is that normal?
>>
>> I think so. It might be clearer if equery omitted the version
>> number, or if it tracked which versions of a package a file
>> belonged to.
>
> So, are you saying that libffi.so.5 does *not* actually belong to
> dev-libs/libffi-3.0.11 ?
>
>>
>> (If I'm wrong, then I suspect you found a bug)
>>
>>
>
>
I believe the old library appears to be owned by the new version
because it is "preserved". Once you run the revdep-rebuild command,
everything should link to the new linker name and you should be safe
to remove the old library. See the functions preserve_old_lib{_notify}
in eutils eclass for more details and the "preserve-libs" option for
the FEATURES variable in make.conf.

- --
Regards,
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)

iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJPuo8HAAoJEPqDWhW0r/LChC8QALtl/HDdxUw8IIveVBNWa959
9PQEVy5dQoyZqYQlmeY/YI8nJzKphO23InMH6V7hyMO6AViTyk9m4zRuQ09MxD6c
IVAamsRYKhwGB8ZEgtLPm9CYubFAs0QYjrneDJ3EsF5D6rorL2 svN8XU/Q5YdTiz
s0T7CSP/wa3EInz+q6Fy710NvH0YLNhtJh7EnXzGxPvtgQM/uq0LAEcJcQ5fsO+c
Tizd2l70kUfQjlHnE+te8oRssQXqnTkgq7Z+GTO3rhRPx29rpn 5/+qEMmTBSi2V2
6bl0IFcodhF6rmds7QkI85uQr6++PANMOgjYj/i0+JZeoUyiKinldP+vHahUKQvE
UGgGIWXzrzNQOB2F0heBA4lCckV/IgO/Wz17yXWS6NzoWxmfP+NkYGcD1NTYxMl6
ztiuTBY5RTFfd16KAeeX9oru5qmi3IBLLNhahNhma/mIwuzqOWt5eo2jH47vAkIJ
EqhvdeULdjqBIOmXPsnlj0SXhtuc8KPiLnmfSu+8Vz9wNxPLaW TtyTsVtjdGNDmC
zyVu4Na5J4o/IPFUfMH7ZRtWkVHS0sPtxxRKiMlg9z/+wlMHdI7s7GdL7wwBH3x6
4jErJz1i/2x9BUUTLcrfjEChUKX2B7IsYnTVg/3N9w6dfHmAU3kPJ8zVBLnxMPcY
2trr2UF/lGmG4OklUR+d
=yEJG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 09:47 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org