| 1 |
On Fri, 25 Jul 2014 15:23:47 -0400 |
| 2 |
Ian Stakenvicius <axs@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> This is something that should only be done on a case-by-case basis, as |
| 5 |
> needed -- for instance, with virtual/krb5 only one provider can be |
| 6 |
> installed at a time as they block eachother. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> We could leave it up to portage to error on mit-krb5 and heimdal being |
| 9 |
> forced into the installation despite blocking eachother, but i think |
| 10 |
> portage would have a better chance telling end-users about the |
| 11 |
> conflict (and maybe helping to resolve it better via --autounmask?) if |
| 12 |
> there was a REQUIRED_USE. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Okay, I didn't think of that. I'm not sure if the blocker deps or the |
| 15 |
REQUIRED_USE would be more helpful for Portage, but generally I think |
| 16 |
that the REQUIRED_USE error message is quite hard to understand for |
| 17 |
unexperienced users -- much more so than the error generated by a |
| 18 |
blocker dep. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
" |
| 21 |
The following REQUIRED_USE flag constraints are unsatisfied: |
| 22 |
heimdal? ( !mit-krb5 ) mit-krb5? ( !heimdal )" |
| 23 |
" |
| 24 |
might be a bit confusing to some people, and remember that constraint |
| 25 |
string would grow much longer if there were more providers, as grows |
| 26 |
quadratically. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Regards, |
| 30 |
Luis Ressel |
Archives