| 1 |
Paul de Vrieze wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Saturday 04 March 2006 15:45, Danny van Dyk wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>>Just to throw in my 2 cents into this discussion: I'm all against |
| 5 |
>>die-ing during the update process. However, i think that stopping |
| 6 |
>>before the update process would be the best solution at hand. I'd like |
| 7 |
>>to propose the addition of a dedicated USE conflict detection to |
| 8 |
>>ebuilds which need it. |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Perhaps it would be possible to tell portage to have a |
| 12 |
> "build-what-you-can" mode, where it tries to build as much as possible |
| 13 |
> after a compilation failure. At the end it then can report on the |
| 14 |
> packages that were not compiled. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
We've had a bug for this for years, no one has implemented it. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Most of the Portage developers would prefer USE-deps to anything else, |
| 20 |
as this is what that is really trying to cover. The only alternative |
| 21 |
I'm willing to support at this time is moving the death ( per |
| 22 |
Kugelfang's suggestion ) to right after depgraph building. Thus a user |
| 23 |
will find out right away that their USE flags conflict and need to be |
| 24 |
changed. Even with USE deps, there cases that just aren't resolvable, |
| 25 |
they are "unsolveable" and I think coming up with some sort of structure |
| 26 |
to inform the user of this is a good idea. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
However we have talked about this and the DEPEND syntax doesn't seem to |
| 29 |
cut it for showing USE conflicts and dependencies. Certainly right now |
| 30 |
the resolver has no metadata whatsoever to work with, so it can't even |
| 31 |
tell if a specific set of USE flags conflict or not, if we provide it |
| 32 |
with that information it can at least die during depgraph creation |
| 33 |
stating what the problem is with the depgraph ( getting closer to having |
| 34 |
actaul buildplans... ). |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
-Alec Warner |
| 37 |
-- |
| 38 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives