At the end of any upgrade it's possible to find a message about revdep-rebuild issues. What do you think about the standardization of these informations? The user always reads the same informations. The developer has less code to write :-) I have written a little patch to /usr/lib/portage/bin/isolated-functions.sh to add a new function, ewarn_revdep_rebuild. For a generic message call ewarn_revdep_rebuild For a specific message use ewarn_revdep_rebuild /path/to/old1 /path/to/new1 ewarn_revdep_rebuild <any number of couples of libraries>
Created attachment 104821 [details, diff] /isolated-functions.patch Here is the patch
Created attachment 104822 [details, diff] isolated-functions.patch Here is the patch
if at all, it should go into eutils.eclass
Comment on attachment 104822 [details, diff] isolated-functions.patch we already have preserve_old_lib_notify() if that message is insufficient, update it
I didn't know those functions :-( I have patched eutils.eclass to support multiple libraries in preserve_old_lib_notify(). I have also updated eutils.eclass.5 to document the preserve_old_lib*() functions.
Created attachment 104844 [details, diff] eutils.eclass.patch
Created attachment 104845 [details, diff] eutils.eclass.5.patch
I was forgetting... In portage a lot of ebuilds don't use preserve_old_lib*() functions. I think they should be updated :-)
should be fixed in cvs now, thanks for the patch
Created attachment 106267 [details] revdep-rebuild.issues.list.gz I have attached a list of ebuild candidates where to use preserve_old_lib() and/or preserve_old_lib_notify(). Vapier, could you also patch the manual of eutils.eclass to document the functions? Thanks, Fabio
ive properly documented the two functions
(In reply to comment #6) > Created an attachment (id=104844) [edit] > eutils.eclass.patch Why does the patch remove the following line? ewarn "After doing that, you can safely remove ${LIB}" In the case of e.g. openssl users keep getting told to revdep-rebuild --library libcrypto.so.0.9.7 if they don't remove it which in turn keeps remerging openssl itself (because libssl.so.0.9.7 links against it). It really should make it very clear that the revdep-rebuild step should be followed by removing the libraries?
it isnt harmful to leave the old libraries around, but yes, the line saying it should be safe should not have been dropped ive added it back into cvs, thanks for the heads up
(In reply to comment #13) > it isnt harmful to leave the old libraries around, but yes, the line saying > it should be safe should not have been dropped > > ive added it back into cvs, thanks for the heads up It's not about safety. It's about the confusion that arises when you keep getting instructed to run revdep-rebuild on each update of a package and following those instructions lead to pointless remerges for no good reason. But the fix is good.. so thanks! :)
