1 |
2010-11-19 16:51:03 Zac Medico napisaĆ(a): |
2 |
> On 10/25/2010 06:24 AM, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote: |
3 |
> > use.unsatisfiable and package.use.unsatisfiable files would cause that `repoman` would treat |
4 |
> > given USE flags in the same way as masked USE flags. These files wouldn't affect behavior of |
5 |
> > `emerge`: |
6 |
> > - If user has enabled given USE flag specified in use.unsatisfiable or package.use.unsatisfiable |
7 |
> > and if optional dependencies controlled by this USE flag are already installed or satisfiable, |
8 |
> > then `emerge` will allow to install given package. |
9 |
> > - If user has enabled given USE flag specified in use.unsatisfiable or package.use.unsatisfiable |
10 |
> > and if optional dependencies controlled by this USE flag cannot be satisfied (with current |
11 |
> > settings of ACCEPT_KEYWORDS, /etc/portage/package.keywords etc.), then `emerge` will print |
12 |
> > informative error message telling e.g. about a dependency masked by ~${ARCH} keyword. |
13 |
> |
14 |
> Can't we print a "masked by ~${ARCH} keyword" message as you suggest, |
15 |
> even without the use.unsatisfiable data? If so, then isn't |
16 |
> use.unsatisfiable redundant? Your patch [1] seems to behave exactly like |
17 |
> use.mask, so I don't see any value added. |
18 |
|
19 |
repoman sometimes needs to allow stable packages to have optional dependencies on unstable |
20 |
packages (usually until these packages are stabilized). My patch implements this functionality |
21 |
for repoman. |
22 |
|
23 |
-- |
24 |
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis |