Doug Hunley writes:
> On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 12:17 PM, Alex Schuster <wo...@wonkology.org>
> wrote:
> >> How would you do that? I'm currently using ~amd64 and can't yet use
> >> sets for some reason.
> >
> > Then you probably need portage 2.2 for this. Which will never ever
> > become stable it seems, but I'm using it just fine for three years
> > now.
>
> Yes, 2.2 is needed. And same here. Using it forever and no issues
Well, I _had_ some issues with that when the preserved-libs feature was
new, a few times after an emerge @preserved-rebuild nothing changed, and
emerge @preserved-libs would emerge the same stuff over and over again. I
had to delete /var/lib/portage/preserved_libs_registry manually. That
was in 2009, all was fine since then. But I fear that one day one of the
many many portage updates might introduce a nasty
bug, and portage will be broken. The chance may be small, but then
there already were over 150 portage updates in my case.
> > Is emerge @preserved-rebuild (with FEATURES=preserve-libs) also a 2.2
> > feature? I like this most, I no longer need to use revdep-rebuild. I
> > always considered having to use it a bug, fixing broken things after
> > breaking them, instead of preventing breakage.
>
> Indeed, also a 2.2 thing and the biggest reason I use it honestly
Me too. revdep-rebuild reports stuff that is broken, and I do not want to
have anything like that on my systems. What if I need such a broken
application before revdep-rebuild has fixed it? For a large package this
might take hours. And what if I run into a build problem?
Using the preserved-libs feature I feel much safer.
Wonko
