| 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 |
Archives