Summary: | sys-apps/portage-2.2: odd "library needed" detection logic (WAS:chromium-11.0.696.68 is a dependency for a lot of packages requiring ffmpeg libraries) | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Portage Development | Reporter: | Andrea Franceschini <andrea.franceschini> |
Component: | Core - Dependencies | Assignee: | Portage team <dev-portage> |
Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | ||
Severity: | normal | CC: | jer |
Priority: | Normal | ||
Version: | 2.2 | ||
Hardware: | x86 | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- | |
Bug Depends on: | |||
Bug Blocks: | 240323 |
Description
Andrea Franceschini
2011-05-18 16:42:53 UTC
That output looks surprisingly odd. My first impression is a portage bug. % qlist ffmpeg|grep libavcodec.so.52 /usr/lib64/libavcodec.so.52.96.0 /usr/lib64/libavcodec.so.52 % qlist chromium|grep libavcodec.so.52 /usr/lib64/chromium-browser/libavcodec.so.52 So, I highly doubt that the packages *really* need /usr/lib64/chromium-browser/libavcodec.so.52 instead of /usr/lib64/libavcodec.so.52 Anyway, I can't reproduce with ~arch portage. :( (In reply to comment #1) I can confirm that I get quite a similar output: $ qlist ffmpeg|grep libavcodec.so.52 /usr/lib/libavcodec.so.52 /usr/lib/libavcodec.so.52.117.0 $ qlist chromium|grep libavcodec.so.52 /usr/lib/chromium-browser/libavcodec.so.52 What about "ldd" on some binaries that portage claim need chromium? Can you prove or disprove that portage is correct/incorrect? (In reply to comment #3) > What about "ldd" on some binaries that portage claim need chromium? Can you > prove or disprove that portage is correct/incorrect? $ ldd /usr/bin/blender [...] libavformat.so.52 => /usr/lib/libavformat.so.52 (0xb72b6000) libavcodec.so.52 => /usr/lib/libavcodec.so.52 (0xb6781000) [...] Here's just (possibly part of) the relevant output. I think Portage is incorrect. Please try to reproduce with portage-2.2.0_alpha34, since it has lots of preserve-libs fixes, including bug 286714. (In reply to comment #5) > Please try to reproduce with portage-2.2.0_alpha34, since it has lots of > preserve-libs fixes, including bug 286714. This effectively solved the problem, thanks. |