Neil Bothwick wrote: > On Sat, 28 May 2016 20:48:37 -0700, Daniel Frey wrote: > >>> Furthermore, the current portage doesn't require the revdep-rebuild >>> step because >>> of the @preserved-rebuild set creation. >> I beg to differ, portage still misses stuff more often than you think. I >> always run revdep-rebuild after an emerge. > I have a weekly system health check cron job that includes revdep-rebuild > -pi (hint to Alan: that's the correct way to have revdep-rebuild ignore > the results of previous runs). It rarely finds anything. There's still > the occasional glitch with preserved-libs, but I fons it works > ninety-lots % of the time, and it is far better than the "let it break > then try to fix it approach" of the days we needed to rely on > revdep-rebuild. > >
I haven't ran revdep-rebuild in likely over a year. Just for giggles, I ran it a bit ago. The only thing it found was libreoffice. That's not exactly a critical package or anything. Given that, I don't think it really serves any point. I wonder if me having backtrack set to 100 helps with that? Of course, unlike poor Alan, I also have a sane approach to upgrading. I also run the latest non-9999 version of portage. Dale :-) :-)
