| 1 |
On Sunday 10 May 2009 04:23:25 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: |
| 2 |
> 1. It was a paludis bug, of course paludis --info came in handy (are |
| 3 |
> you trying to jest? ;p) |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
It's most likely not a Paludis bug; do you really think that no-one's ever |
| 6 |
tried to compile Qt4 on amd64 with Paludis until now? I'm guessing a |
| 7 |
misconfiguration, but we'll have to wait for the real paludis --info output |
| 8 |
(NOT emerge --info, because that doesn't say anything about the Paludis |
| 9 |
configuration) to be sure. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
> 2. You found it useful because you knew the syntax, and where to look |
| 12 |
> for what -- it is relevant to you. Not to everyone else |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
It's useful and relevant if and only if it contains information that helps |
| 15 |
diagnose the problem. In the likely event that it's a misconfiguration, that |
| 16 |
applies to paludis --info, but probably not emerge --info, unless he made the |
| 17 |
same mistake with both. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> 3. Also, last comment on the bug: |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> "The emerge --info and paludis --info I reported above are from the wrong |
| 22 |
> machine. I'll update the results on Monday when I get back to the correct |
| 23 |
> machine. It is a Xeon W5580 cpu which should be compiling as x86_64. I |
| 24 |
> believe the bug is real. Sorry for the confusion." |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> Oops? =p |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
If anything, that's a point in favour of tanderson's argument. If the --info |
| 29 |
the user had posted had been right, then both the paludis and emerge output |
| 30 |
are equally useful, because they both indicate that it isn't an amd64 system |
| 31 |
at all. On the other hand, if it turns out that on the correct system, |
| 32 |
Paludis is misconfigured and Portage isn't, then only paludis --info will |
| 33 |
help. |
Archives