1 |
On 8 July 2014 00:45, James Potts <arek75@×××××.com> wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> |
4 |
> In this case, it would be nice if Portage would see if one package of |
5 |
> the set could be resolved without blocks or required config changes |
6 |
> (i.e. if one package can be installed *now* choose it over |
7 |
> earlier-listed not-installable packages). The problem with this is |
8 |
> that it would take longer to resolve || () deps if the first one isn't |
9 |
> installable. Not only that, but the workaround is easy: Either |
10 |
> install the package you want first (upower-pm-utils, for example), or |
11 |
> at the same time as your "target" package, so I also don't see this as |
12 |
> high-priority. I also don't see this as something needing changed in |
13 |
> PMS, as other PMs have different ways of handling the issue. |
14 |
> |
15 |
> --James |
16 |
> |
17 |
> |
18 |
I sometimes wonder if it would be easier in some way if we just employed |
19 |
more useflags to make the alternation less magical. |
20 |
|
21 |
And then perhaps fall back to the existing system of automagicking it only |
22 |
if no relevant useflags were used. |
23 |
|
24 |
Just there, I don't recall there being an easy way to say "do X only if !Y |
25 |
!Z !A" |
26 |
|
27 |
REQUIRED_USE="x? ( !y !z ) y? ( !z )" |
28 |
DEPEND=" |
29 |
x? ( a ) |
30 |
y? ( b ) |
31 |
z? ( c ) |
32 |
!x? ( !y? ( !z? ( || ( a b c ) ))) |
33 |
" |
34 |
|
35 |
As it stands its useful, ... until portage takes the wrong path, and then |
36 |
you have to fix the problem manually by convincing it which path to take by |
37 |
lining up the dependencies yourself, instead of just declaring "look, the |
38 |
path you should be doing is this one, forget that other stuff" and let |
39 |
portage handle the rest. |
40 |
|
41 |
Though this is Probably crazy talk. |
42 |
|
43 |
-- |
44 |
Kent |
45 |
|
46 |
*KENTNL* - https://metacpan.org/author/KENTNL |