| 1 |
On Tuesday 25 October 2005 01:45, Ferris McCormick wrote: |
| 2 |
> Well, maybe so. However that missing '<' is kind of important |
| 3 |
Indeed - and it has nothing to do with modular X. There are other !<foo-N deps |
| 4 |
in portage. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
> , and when |
| 7 |
> playing with X-modular, the portage output really looks like the modular |
| 8 |
> packages are blocking the non-existent xorg-x11-7. It's not a "matter of |
| 9 |
> using portage correctly" because portage is misreporting the (phantom) |
| 10 |
> problem. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> As I recall, it looks like this (for example): |
| 13 |
> x11-base/xorg-server-xxx [B x11-base/xorg-x11-7] |
| 14 |
> which without that little '<' is, shall we say, wrong. |
| 15 |
Example output from the OP: |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
[blocks B ] <x11-base/xorg-x11-7 (is blocking x11-proto/kbproto-1.0-r1) |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
The < is there, and portage isn't misreporting. You just have to read |
| 20 |
carefully. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> Since (so far as I |
| 23 |
> know) it arises only in the X-modular context, this is the right place for |
| 24 |
> the question. (With '<' it's true but irrelevant, but portage is being |
| 25 |
> misled into believing xorg-x11 is required. R. Hill addressed that issue |
| 26 |
> in another post.) |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> Or maybe it arises elsewhere too? |
| 29 |
# find /usr/portage -name '*.ebuild' | xargs grep -He '!\w*<' |
| 30 |
gives lots of results. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
xorg-x11-7 is probably the only case where the max version being blocked (7) |
| 33 |
doesn't exist. But that doesn't stop one from understanding the < blocking |
| 34 |
dep. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
Dan Armak |
| 38 |
Gentoo Linux developer (KDE) |
| 39 |
Public GPG key: http://dev.gentoo.org/~danarmak/danarmak-gpg-public.key |
| 40 |
Fingerprint: DD70 DBF9 E3D4 6CB9 2FDD 0069 508D 9143 8D5F 8951 |
Archives