revdep-rebuild and -bin packages (was Re: [gentoo-user] Disk usage?)
Mark Knecht wrote: > On 6/16/05, Neil Bothwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 22:34:51 -0700, Mark Knecht wrote: >> >> >>>Please correct me if I'm wrong but if what revdep-rebuild does is >>>important then I want to kow about any program on my system that >>>doesn't have all it's dependencies met, right? Seems that OO-bin has >>>this problem and, unless I find out what USE flags the -bi versio was >>>built with and match them in my setup then I'm going to be subject to >>>a problem. (possibly...) >> >>revdep-rebuild is irrelevant to ooo-bin, and others, because you cannot >>rebuild a binary package. All it does is reinstall the same binary, not >>build a new one. >> > > Right, but.the errors within revdep-rebuild are not irrelivant to > a user who's just run revdep-rebuild and has to sort through a number > of errors to decide what to do. My point was that I'd like to know how > my copy of oo-bin was built/linked so that I could (possibly) set my > systems up so that everything is 100% cool. > > It's only slightly frustrating to deal with that. Not a big deal. And > since oo-bin hasn't crashed on me in quite awhile it would seem that > whatever the dependency issues are they aren't serious. > > thanks, > Mark > At least on my system, the problem with openoffice-bin-1.9.104 isn't actually broken dynamic links. It's just that ldd complains "ldd: warning: you do not have execution permission for `something.so'" for these files: /opt/OpenOffice.org/program/python-core-2.3.4/lib/lib-dynload/_bsddb.so /opt/OpenOffice.org/program/python-core-2.3.4/lib/lib-dynload/_tkinter.so /opt/OpenOffice.org/program/python-core-2.3.4/lib/lib-dynload/bz2.so /opt/OpenOffice.org/program/python-core-2.3.4/lib/lib-dynload/dbm.so /opt/OpenOffice.org/program/python-core-2.3.4/lib/lib-dynload/gdbm.so If I chmod +x those files then it stops complaining. Zac /opt/OpenOffice.org/program/python-core-2.3.4/lib/lib-dynload/readline.so -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: revdep-rebuild and -bin packages (was Re: [gentoo-user] Disk usage?)
Zac Medico wrote: > Mark Knecht wrote: > >>On 6/16/05, Neil Bothwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >>>On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 22:34:51 -0700, Mark Knecht wrote: >>> >>> >>> Please correct me if I'm wrong but if what revdep-rebuild does is important then I want to kow about any program on my system that doesn't have all it's dependencies met, right? Seems that OO-bin has this problem and, unless I find out what USE flags the -bi versio was built with and match them in my setup then I'm going to be subject to a problem. (possibly...) >>> >>>revdep-rebuild is irrelevant to ooo-bin, and others, because you cannot >>>rebuild a binary package. All it does is reinstall the same binary, not >>>build a new one. >>> >> >>Right, but.the errors within revdep-rebuild are not irrelivant to >>a user who's just run revdep-rebuild and has to sort through a number >>of errors to decide what to do. My point was that I'd like to know how >>my copy of oo-bin was built/linked so that I could (possibly) set my >>systems up so that everything is 100% cool. >> >> It's only slightly frustrating to deal with that. Not a big deal. And >>since oo-bin hasn't crashed on me in quite awhile it would seem that >>whatever the dependency issues are they aren't serious. >> >>thanks, >>Mark >> > > > At least on my system, the problem with openoffice-bin-1.9.104 isn't actually > broken dynamic links. It's just that ldd complains "ldd: warning: you do not > have execution permission for `something.so'" for these files: > > /opt/OpenOffice.org/program/python-core-2.3.4/lib/lib-dynload/_bsddb.so > /opt/OpenOffice.org/program/python-core-2.3.4/lib/lib-dynload/_tkinter.so > /opt/OpenOffice.org/program/python-core-2.3.4/lib/lib-dynload/bz2.so > /opt/OpenOffice.org/program/python-core-2.3.4/lib/lib-dynload/dbm.so > /opt/OpenOffice.org/program/python-core-2.3.4/lib/lib-dynload/gdbm.so > /opt/OpenOffice.org/program/python-core-2.3.4/lib/lib-dynload/readline.so > > If I chmod +x those files then it stops complaining. > I lied, there really are broken dynamic links :-). -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: revdep-rebuild and -bin packages (was Re: [gentoo-user] Disk usage?)
Liar! Well, we forgive you, I think =). Actually the better (Gentoo suggested) way to squelch these packages is to exclude /opt from the search path in the revdep-rebuild script. Just do EDITOR `which revdep-rebuild` and take /opt out of the SEARCH_DIRS, most anything that goes in there should be a binary release, but sadly not every binary package ends up in there (azureus-bin comes to mind). On 6/16/05, Zac Medico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Zac Medico wrote: > > Mark Knecht wrote: > > > >>On 6/16/05, Neil Bothwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> > >>>On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 22:34:51 -0700, Mark Knecht wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > Please correct me if I'm wrong but if what revdep-rebuild does is > important then I want to kow about any program on my system that > doesn't have all it's dependencies met, right? Seems that OO-bin has > this problem and, unless I find out what USE flags the -bi versio was > built with and match them in my setup then I'm going to be subject to > a problem. (possibly...) > >>> > >>>revdep-rebuild is irrelevant to ooo-bin, and others, because you cannot > >>>rebuild a binary package. All it does is reinstall the same binary, not > >>>build a new one. > >>> > >> > >>Right, but.the errors within revdep-rebuild are not irrelivant to > >>a user who's just run revdep-rebuild and has to sort through a number > >>of errors to decide what to do. My point was that I'd like to know how > >>my copy of oo-bin was built/linked so that I could (possibly) set my > >>systems up so that everything is 100% cool. > >> > >> It's only slightly frustrating to deal with that. Not a big deal. And > >>since oo-bin hasn't crashed on me in quite awhile it would seem that > >>whatever the dependency issues are they aren't serious. > >> > >>thanks, > >>Mark > >> > > > > > > At least on my system, the problem with openoffice-bin-1.9.104 isn't > > actually broken dynamic links. It's just that ldd complains "ldd: warning: > > you do not have execution permission for `something.so'" for these files: > > > > /opt/OpenOffice.org/program/python-core-2.3.4/lib/lib-dynload/_bsddb.so > > /opt/OpenOffice.org/program/python-core-2.3.4/lib/lib-dynload/_tkinter.so > > /opt/OpenOffice.org/program/python-core-2.3.4/lib/lib-dynload/bz2.so > > /opt/OpenOffice.org/program/python-core-2.3.4/lib/lib-dynload/dbm.so > > /opt/OpenOffice.org/program/python-core-2.3.4/lib/lib-dynload/gdbm.so > > /opt/OpenOffice.org/program/python-core-2.3.4/lib/lib-dynload/readline.so > > > > If I chmod +x those files then it stops complaining. > > > > I lied, there really are broken dynamic links :-). > > -- > gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list > > -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: revdep-rebuild and -bin packages (was Re: [gentoo-user] Disk usage?)
Hi, Maybe a better way is to emerge hard-masked "gentoolkit-0.2.1_pre3" (cause it's only tested on x86). In it there is a new version on 'revdep-rebuild' which allows you to mask certain dirs, by using (mine): ... SEARCH_DIRS_MASK="/home /mnt /opt/sun-jdk /opt/vmware/lib /opt/OpenOffice" ... For more info search for 'revdep-rebuild' on Bugzilla. There one with a new version (attached) Think it is the same? version of revdep-rebuild as in the hard-masked gentoolkit. HTH. Rumen Wade Brown wrote: >Liar! Well, we forgive you, I think =). > >Actually the better (Gentoo suggested) way to squelch these packages >is to exclude /opt from the search path in the revdep-rebuild script. >Just do EDITOR `which revdep-rebuild` and take /opt out of the >SEARCH_DIRS, most anything that goes in there should be a binary >release, but sadly not every binary package ends up in there >(azureus-bin comes to mind). > >On 6/16/05, Zac Medico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>Zac Medico wrote: >> >> >>>Mark Knecht wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 6/16/05, Neil Bothwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 22:34:51 -0700, Mark Knecht wrote: > > > > > >>Please correct me if I'm wrong but if what revdep-rebuild does is >>important then I want to kow about any program on my system that >>doesn't have all it's dependencies met, right? Seems that OO-bin has >>this problem and, unless I find out what USE flags the -bi versio was >>built with and match them in my setup then I'm going to be subject to >>a problem. (possibly...) >> >> >revdep-rebuild is irrelevant to ooo-bin, and others, because you cannot >rebuild a binary package. All it does is reinstall the same binary, not >build a new one. > > > Right, but.the errors within revdep-rebuild are not irrelivant to a user who's just run revdep-rebuild and has to sort through a number of errors to decide what to do. My point was that I'd like to know how my copy of oo-bin was built/linked so that I could (possibly) set my systems up so that everything is 100% cool. It's only slightly frustrating to deal with that. Not a big deal. And since oo-bin hasn't crashed on me in quite awhile it would seem that whatever the dependency issues are they aren't serious. thanks, Mark >>>At least on my system, the problem with openoffice-bin-1.9.104 isn't >>>actually broken dynamic links. It's just that ldd complains "ldd: warning: >>>you do not have execution permission for `something.so'" for these files: >>> >>>/opt/OpenOffice.org/program/python-core-2.3.4/lib/lib-dynload/_bsddb.so >>>/opt/OpenOffice.org/program/python-core-2.3.4/lib/lib-dynload/_tkinter.so >>>/opt/OpenOffice.org/program/python-core-2.3.4/lib/lib-dynload/bz2.so >>>/opt/OpenOffice.org/program/python-core-2.3.4/lib/lib-dynload/dbm.so >>>/opt/OpenOffice.org/program/python-core-2.3.4/lib/lib-dynload/gdbm.so >>>/opt/OpenOffice.org/program/python-core-2.3.4/lib/lib-dynload/readline.so >>> >>>If I chmod +x those files then it stops complaining. >>> >>> >>> >>I lied, there really are broken dynamic links :-). >> >>-- >>gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list >> >> >> >> > > > smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: revdep-rebuild and -bin packages (was Re: [gentoo-user] Disk usage?)
On 6/16/05, Rumen Yotov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > Maybe a better way is to emerge hard-masked "gentoolkit-0.2.1_pre3" > (cause it's only tested on x86). > In it there is a new version on 'revdep-rebuild' which allows you to > mask certain dirs, by using (mine): > ... > SEARCH_DIRS_MASK="/home /mnt /opt/sun-jdk /opt/vmware/lib /opt/OpenOffice" > ... > For more info search for 'revdep-rebuild' on Bugzilla. There one with a > new version (attached) > Think it is the same? version of revdep-rebuild as in the hard-masked > gentoolkit. > HTH. Rumen > Wade Brown wrote: > > >Liar! Well, we forgive you, I think =). > > > >Actually the better (Gentoo suggested) way to squelch these packages > >is to exclude /opt from the search path in the revdep-rebuild script. > >Just do EDITOR `which revdep-rebuild` and take /opt out of the > >SEARCH_DIRS, most anything that goes in there should be a binary > >release, but sadly not every binary package ends up in there > >(azureus-bin comes to mind). > > But we agree that this just squelches the messages, correct? It's not making the system's linkages more correct. It's just saying we don't care about that directory. I think that's fine for binary packages but it's not the same as having all the dependencies correct. It would be nice, I would think, to have some info somewhere on how the binary package was built - what flags, what gcc, etc., if only for reference. Cheers, Mark -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: revdep-rebuild and -bin packages (was Re: [gentoo-user] Disk usage?)
Mark Knecht wrote: > > But we agree that this just squelches the messages, correct? It's not > making the system's linkages more correct. It's just saying we don't > care about that directory. I think that's fine for binary packages but > it's not the same as having all the dependencies correct. > > It would be nice, I would think, to have some info somewhere on how > the binary package was built - what flags, what gcc, etc., if only for > reference. > > Cheers, > Mark > I suspect the best solution is for the binary packages to be built statically (at least the parts that commonly result in broken dynamic links). Zac -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: revdep-rebuild and -bin packages (was Re: [gentoo-user] Disk usage?)
On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 12:55:09 -0700, Mark Knecht wrote: > It would be nice, I would think, to have some info somewhere on how > the binary package was built - what flags, what gcc, etc., if only for > reference. Binary packages are not compiled by Gentoo, so that information may not be easy to come by. -- Neil Bothwick I'll try being nicer if you'll try being smarter. pgpJzTRF17two.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: revdep-rebuild and -bin packages (was Re: [gentoo-user] Disk usage?)
On 6/16/05, Neil Bothwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 12:55:09 -0700, Mark Knecht wrote: > > > It would be nice, I would think, to have some info somewhere on how > > the binary package was built - what flags, what gcc, etc., if only for > > reference. > > Binary packages are not compiled by Gentoo, so that information may not > be easy to come by. > Oh!! I had no idea that was the case. I always assumed that this was done by you guys for a few specific packages. If they come from elsewhere then all bets are certainly off. Thanks for the eye opening response. - Mark -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: revdep-rebuild and -bin packages (was Re: [gentoo-user] Disk usage?)
On Thu, June 16, 2005 10:20 pm, Mark Knecht said: >> Binary packages are not compiled by Gentoo, so that information may not >> be easy to come by. >> > Oh!! I had no idea that was the case. I always assumed that this was > done by you guys for a few specific packages. If they come from > elsewhere then all bets are certainly off. The *-bin packages, as opposed to the binary GRP packages, are where the developers supply a binary, such as OOo and the Mozilla family. -- Neil Bothwick -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: revdep-rebuild and -bin packages (was Re: [gentoo-user] Disk usage?)
On Thu, 2005-06-16 at 12:55 -0700, Mark Knecht wrote: > But we agree that this just squelches the messages, correct? It's not > making the system's linkages more correct. It's just saying we don't > care about that directory. I think that's fine for binary packages but > it's not the same as having all the dependencies correct. > > It would be nice, I would think, to have some info somewhere on how > the binary package was built - what flags, what gcc, etc., if only for > reference. As noted elsewhere, the -bin packages are built by the developers of the package and not Gentoo. You are correct that for most binary packages, setting the variable is squelching the messages. However, there are couple of packages that do some specialized linking that I have been unable to duplicate in order to verify that the linking is actually broken. openoffice-bin and azureus-bin are two that I am aware of. For these packages it is easier and better to just squelch the messages. For the binary packages that don't do specialized linking, I prefer that the revdep-rebuild messages not be masked. The reason is that they indicate missing dependencies for the binary package. Regards, Paul -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: revdep-rebuild and -bin packages (was Re: [gentoo-user] Disk usage?)
On Thu, 2005-06-16 at 22:24 +0300, Rumen Yotov wrote: > Hi, > Maybe a better way is to emerge hard-masked "gentoolkit-0.2.1_pre3" > (cause it's only tested on x86). > In it there is a new version on 'revdep-rebuild' which allows you to > mask certain dirs, by using (mine): > ... > SEARCH_DIRS_MASK="/home /mnt /opt/sun-jdk /opt/vmware/lib /opt/OpenOffice" > ... > For more info search for 'revdep-rebuild' on Bugzilla. There one with a > new version (attached) > Think it is the same? version of revdep-rebuild as in the hard-masked > gentoolkit. Actually at this point it has been tested on alpha amd64 ppc ppc64 sparc x86. The revdep-rebuild in gentoolkit_0.2.1_pre3 has a couple of more bug fixes in it than the last version in the bug. However, they are basically the same. Regards, Paul -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: revdep-rebuild and -bin packages (was Re: [gentoo-user] Disk usage?)
On Thursday 16 Jun 2005 19:45, Zac Medico wrote: > >>revdep-rebuild is irrelevant to ooo-bin, and others, because you cannot > >>rebuild a binary package. All it does is reinstall the same binary, not > >>build a new one. I just thought I would let you know what I've done to resolve this problem. I have emerged gentoolkit-0.2.1_pre3 and made an entry in my make.conf of SEARCH_DIRS_MASK="/opt". I then ran revdep-rebuild and all ran without any open office errors. Hope this helps Paul -- This message has been sent using kmail with gentoo linux -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: revdep-rebuild and -bin packages (was Re: [gentoo-user] Disk usage?)
On Friday 17 June 2005 10:58, Paul wrote: > On Thursday 16 Jun 2005 19:45, Zac Medico wrote: > > > > >>revdep-rebuild is irrelevant to ooo-bin, and others, because you > > >> cannot rebuild a binary package. All it does is reinstall the > > >> same binary, not build a new one. > > I just thought I would let you know what I've done to resolve this > problem. I have emerged gentoolkit-0.2.1_pre3 and made an entry in my > make.conf of SEARCH_DIRS_MASK="/opt". > I then ran revdep-rebuild and all ran without any open office errors. > I may be misreading this thread but I just package mask the binaries I use as in OOo 1.9 whatever and the same for the mozilla family. Using gentoolkit-0.2.1_pre3 revdep-rebuild doesn't complain at all -- Tony Davison [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: revdep-rebuild and -bin packages (was Re: [gentoo-user] Disk usage?)
Tony Davison wrote: > On Friday 17 June 2005 10:58, Paul wrote: > >>On Thursday 16 Jun 2005 19:45, Zac Medico wrote: >> >> >revdep-rebuild is irrelevant to ooo-bin, and others, because you >cannot rebuild a binary package. All it does is reinstall the >same binary, not build a new one. >> >>I just thought I would let you know what I've done to resolve this >>problem. I have emerged gentoolkit-0.2.1_pre3 and made an entry in my >>make.conf of SEARCH_DIRS_MASK="/opt". >>I then ran revdep-rebuild and all ran without any open office errors. >> > > I may be misreading this thread but I just package mask the binaries I > use as in OOo 1.9 whatever and the same for the mozilla family. Using > gentoolkit-0.2.1_pre3 revdep-rebuild doesn't complain at all I've been happily using the SEARCH_DIRS_MASK feature since before gentoolkit-0.2.1_pre3 was released (using the version from Bugzilla). I don't follow that part about "package mask the binaries". Can you explain? Zac -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: revdep-rebuild and -bin packages (was Re: [gentoo-user] Disk usage?)
On 6/17/05, Zac Medico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Tony Davison wrote: > > On Friday 17 June 2005 10:58, Paul wrote: > > > >>On Thursday 16 Jun 2005 19:45, Zac Medico wrote: > >> > >> > >revdep-rebuild is irrelevant to ooo-bin, and others, because you > >cannot rebuild a binary package. All it does is reinstall the > >same binary, not build a new one. > >> > >>I just thought I would let you know what I've done to resolve this > >>problem. I have emerged gentoolkit-0.2.1_pre3 and made an entry in my > >>make.conf of SEARCH_DIRS_MASK="/opt". > >>I then ran revdep-rebuild and all ran without any open office errors. > >> > > > > I may be misreading this thread but I just package mask the binaries I > > use as in OOo 1.9 whatever and the same for the mozilla family. Using > > gentoolkit-0.2.1_pre3 revdep-rebuild doesn't complain at all > > I've been happily using the SEARCH_DIRS_MASK feature since before > gentoolkit-0.2.1_pre3 was released (using the version from Bugzilla). I > don't follow that part about "package mask the binaries". Can you explain? > > Zac I think he means /etc/portage/package.mask to stop the system from updating OO? That's my guess. - Mark -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: revdep-rebuild and -bin packages (was Re: [gentoo-user] Disk usage?)
On Friday 17 June 2005 20:25, Zac Medico wrote: > Tony Davison wrote: > > On Friday 17 June 2005 10:58, Paul wrote: > >>On Thursday 16 Jun 2005 19:45, Zac Medico wrote: > >> > >> > >revdep-rebuild is irrelevant to ooo-bin, and others, because you > >cannot rebuild a binary package. All it does is reinstall the > >same binary, not build a new one. > >> > >>I just thought I would let you know what I've done to resolve this > >>problem. I have emerged gentoolkit-0.2.1_pre3 and made an entry in > >> my make.conf of SEARCH_DIRS_MASK="/opt". > >>I then ran revdep-rebuild and all ran without any open office > >> errors. > > > > I may be misreading this thread but I just package mask the > > binaries I use as in OOo 1.9 whatever and the same for the mozilla > > family. Using gentoolkit-0.2.1_pre3 revdep-rebuild doesn't complain > > at all > > I've been happily using the SEARCH_DIRS_MASK feature since before > gentoolkit-0.2.1_pre3 was released (using the version from Bugzilla). > I don't follow that part about "package mask the binaries". Can you > explain? /etc/portage/package.mask contains for example:-
Re: revdep-rebuild and -bin packages (was Re: [gentoo-user] Disk usage?)
Tony Davison wrote: I just thought I would let you know what I've done to resolve this problem. I have emerged gentoolkit-0.2.1_pre3 and made an entry in my make.conf of SEARCH_DIRS_MASK="/opt". I then ran revdep-rebuild and all ran without any open office errors. >>> >>>I may be misreading this thread but I just package mask the >>>binaries I use as in OOo 1.9 whatever and the same for the mozilla >>>family. Using gentoolkit-0.2.1_pre3 revdep-rebuild doesn't complain >>>at all >> >>I've been happily using the SEARCH_DIRS_MASK feature since before >>gentoolkit-0.2.1_pre3 was released (using the version from Bugzilla). >> I don't follow that part about "package mask the binaries". Can you >>explain? > > > /etc/portage/package.mask contains for example:- > revdep-rebuild will take slightly less time it you use SEARCH_DIRS_MASK="/opt/openoffice /opt/mozilla" in make.conf. Zac -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: revdep-rebuild and -bin packages (was Re: [gentoo-user] Disk usage?)
On Friday 17 June 2005 23:25, Zac Medico wrote: > Tony Davison wrote: > I just thought I would let you know what I've done to resolve > this problem. I have emerged gentoolkit-0.2.1_pre3 and made an > entry in my make.conf of SEARCH_DIRS_MASK="/opt". > I then ran revdep-rebuild and all ran without any open office > errors. > >>> > >>>I may be misreading this thread but I just package mask the > >>>binaries I use as in OOo 1.9 whatever and the same for the mozilla > >>>family. Using gentoolkit-0.2.1_pre3 revdep-rebuild doesn't > >>> complain at all > >> > >>I've been happily using the SEARCH_DIRS_MASK feature since before > >>gentoolkit-0.2.1_pre3 was released (using the version from > >> Bugzilla). I don't follow that part about "package mask the > >> binaries". Can you explain? > > > > /etc/portage/package.mask contains for example:- > > > revdep-rebuild will take slightly less time it you use > SEARCH_DIRS_MASK="/opt/openoffice /opt/mozilla" in make.conf. Thanks for that Zac, I'll try it next time round. Mind, I _do_ have lots of time. :-) -- Tony Davison [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
