| 1 |
On Mon, Feb 10, 2003 at 08:58:56PM +0100, Ingo Krabbe wrote: |
| 2 |
> This sounds to me exactly as the error means: |
| 3 |
> gnome2.2 is stable but some of the dependancies aren't so if you want to |
| 4 |
> update to gnome2.2 you have either to accept beta packages or stream |
| 5 |
> down the gnome2.2 if you can mask out one or some other package from the |
| 6 |
> dependancy list. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Since gnome2.2 should be some kind of virtual package it shouldn't be |
| 9 |
> stable until all of its dependancies are. So this also could be |
| 10 |
> understood as an error. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> BUT ! The dependancies might vary by change of use flags. So gnome2.2 |
| 13 |
> could be called stable once all possible use variations that effect its |
| 14 |
> dependancy tree will also mask completly stable. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> This sounds like a hard rule for a real intelligent software. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> At least it turns out that YOU are the most intelligent part in that |
| 19 |
> process, so you have to tune on that error, not your software. I fear |
| 20 |
> that you have to accept that gnome2.2 isn't stable for you yet, so you |
| 21 |
> should mask itself out with ~x86 (in you personal portage tree) or |
| 22 |
> accept beta packages at least to emerge -u gnome. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> But that's only my opinion: I would vote against calling this an error |
| 25 |
> actually. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Yes, I came the the same conclusions. It just seems strange that all |
| 28 |
packages are not set to stable when the main meta package (gnome) is. |
| 29 |
Normally things that cause those sorts of problems stay away from |
| 30 |
stable. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
Alan <alan@×××××.org> - http://arcterex.net |
| 34 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| 35 |
"The only thing that experience teaches us is that experience teaches |
| 36 |
us nothing. -- Andre Maurois (Emile Herzog) |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
-- |
| 39 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives