1 |
On Friday 04 November 2005 22:33, Marius Mauch wrote: |
2 |
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
3 |
> > On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 23:14:20 -0800 Brian <dol-sen@×××××.net> wrote: |
4 |
> > | emerge -pv <package> |
5 |
> > | |
6 |
> > | would actually continue listing (modified normal)after finding a |
7 |
> > | dependency is masked rather than stop on, and report only, the first |
8 |
> > | one. The masked packages would need to be marked as such [hard |
9 |
> > | masked, keyword masked], possibly shown grouped in blocks [KEYWORD, |
10 |
> > | HARD MASKED, STABLE]. |
11 |
> > |
12 |
> > Problem is, once you hit one bad dependency, you can't carry on and |
13 |
> > guarantee what the rest of the dep tree is going to be. Example: |
14 |
> > |
15 |
> > emerge -pv foo |
16 |
> > |
17 |
> > foo DEPENDs upon bar and baz |
18 |
> > bar DEPENDS upon fnord, and is MASKED |
19 |
> > baz DEPENDs upon || ( gerbil fnord ) |
20 |
> |
21 |
> Well, that and other semantic issues (what to do with multiple |
22 |
> candidates for example?). |
23 |
|
24 |
Multiple candidates is the most worrying for me as well. a-1.1 is masked and |
25 |
requires >=b-1.0. b has 1.0 and 1.1 both of which are masked. b-1.0 requires |
26 |
c-1.0 while b-1.1 requires c-1.1. c-1.1 masked but c-1.0 isn't. Should the |
27 |
above "keep going" just grab the highest *masked* version at each stage? |
28 |
|
29 |
Either way, while there are bugs such as error messages being truncated, |
30 |
requests such as "allow me to break my system easier" are truly far from my |
31 |
mind. Of course, supplied patches will always be reviewed. |
32 |
|
33 |
-- |
34 |
Jason Stubbs |
35 |
-- |
36 |
gentoo-portage-dev@g.o mailing list |