1 |
On Sat, 2005-05-11 at 13:48 +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote: |
2 |
> On Saturday 05 November 2005 10:39, Brian wrote: |
3 |
> > > |
4 |
> > > Multiple candidates is the most worrying for me as well. a-1.1 is masked |
5 |
> > > and requires >=b-1.0. b has 1.0 and 1.1 both of which are masked. b-1.0 |
6 |
> > > requires c-1.0 while b-1.1 requires c-1.1. c-1.1 masked but c-1.0 isn't. |
7 |
> > > Should the above "keep going" just grab the highest *masked* version at |
8 |
> > > each stage? |
9 |
> > |
10 |
> > Isn't that what users end up with after adding each package to |
11 |
> > package.keywords then emerge-pv <package> again, and again... |
12 |
> > unless they do detailed research for each failed dep. I know I never |
13 |
> > looked that close at the packages each time it happened as long as it |
14 |
> > wasn't hard masked. |
15 |
> |
16 |
> So whatever atom it was that has all packages masked should be unmasked? That |
17 |
> seems like it would work. The next problem is the four/five types of masking |
18 |
> currently in use; ~arch, -arch, arch not specified, package.mask and |
19 |
> profile's packages. |
20 |
|
21 |
<snip> |
22 |
> > |
23 |
> > Well, I don't know that I could supply patches to portage. I have enough |
24 |
> > to keep track of in porthole let alone learn the intricacies of package |
25 |
> > management. It sounds like this is something easier done in porthole |
26 |
> > where we can display all relevant packages in a dialog with checkboxes |
27 |
> > for package selection and possibly an adjustable search depth. That way |
28 |
> > package research could be done in porthole's main window to help decide |
29 |
> > whether they wish to proceed and or which version to select. |
30 |
> |
31 |
> Actually, it would take a fair bit of work on the portage side. At the moment, |
32 |
> there's no existing function to figure out how a package is masked, nor is |
33 |
> there an easy way change the configuration after it is read in from the |
34 |
> config files. Unless you plan to parsing the text returns from |
35 |
> getmaskingstatus() and manually inserting data into this and that config, |
36 |
> you'll need to patch portage anyway... |
37 |
> |
38 |
> -- |
39 |
> Jason Stubbs |
40 |
|
41 |
For what I had in mind I should not have to patch portage. I would be |
42 |
using porthole's dependency list code and pick out the unsatisfied |
43 |
masked deps and display them in a dialog for approval. After they have |
44 |
been package.whatever'd, then check with an emerge -pv for a final |
45 |
check. Just in case porthole's dependency calc's did not get all of |
46 |
them correct. But I have not run across one yet since Tommy reworked |
47 |
that code. |
48 |
|
49 |
One possibility to add that functionality to portage would be to invoke |
50 |
a standalone dep-scan utility rather than just print the standard |
51 |
failure message. That would require minimal change to working stable |
52 |
portage code and add that feature. The next step is for me to come up |
53 |
with some porthole code to test my theory on. If it is successful a |
54 |
standalone utility should be able to be developed from it. |
55 |
|
56 |
-- |
57 |
Brian <dol-sen@×××××.net> |
58 |
|
59 |
-- |
60 |
gentoo-portage-dev@g.o mailing list |