Gentoo Websites Logo
Go to: Gentoo Home Documentation Forums Lists Bugs Planet Store Wiki Get Gentoo!

Bug 1932

Summary: emerge does not pick up dependency change when ebuild was updated but revision number was not changed.
Product: Portage Development Reporter: George Shapovalov (RETIRED) <george>
Component: UnclassifiedAssignee: Daniel Robbins (RETIRED) <drobbins>
Status: RESOLVED FIXED    
Severity: normal    
Priority: High    
Version: unspecified   
Hardware: x86   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Package list:
Runtime testing required: ---

Description George Shapovalov (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2002-04-19 03:57:01 UTC
I had one user complain about this issue:
<phj> It's not the first time I encounter this problem. I did try to modify an
ebuild to force the use of a newer library and my changes didn't get applied for
a time. And suddenly, it worked...

Case at hand:
wv-0.7.1.ebuild depends on libwmf-0.2.2.ebuild. (BTW this is my old submission,
before I was able to commit. I will take care of it now).
Originally I kept libwmf in dev-libs, later (now as I set to sort this out) I
relocated it under media-libs (more apropriate along with png and jpeg stuff).
Issue appears in the following way: 
1. user ran emerge --pretend wv when wv-0.7.1.ebuild contained old (dev-libs)
reference but libwmf was already relocated. That did not find the dependency
apparently.
2. I changed an ebuild for wv. User chacks that correct entry is in place and
runs emerge --pretend wv again.
However emerge complains with the same error again - it is trying to look for
dev-libs/libwmf instead of media-libs/libwmf. Apparently emerge did not update
the cache.

rm -f /var/cache/edb/deps/*  resolves the situation.

Resolution:
ebuild timestamps should be checked and compared with timestamps on the cached
dependencies.
Comment 1 Daniel Robbins (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2002-04-21 17:46:32 UTC
I am unable to replicate this problem here.  We *do* check mtimes on the cache
files.
Comment 2 Daniel Robbins (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2002-04-21 23:58:14 UTC
Note: We *did* have this problem but it shouldn't exist anymore with 1.9.1.  See
if you can replicate it with 1.9.1
Comment 3 George Shapovalov (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2002-04-22 00:16:14 UTC
 Indeed, that was a few days ago. Now it appears to be fixed.