Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] emerge -pv and masked dependencies

On Sat, Nov 05, 2005 at 01:55:35AM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> On Friday 04 November 2005 22:33, Marius Mauch wrote:
> > Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 23:14:20 -0800 Brian <dol-sen@×××××.net> wrote:
> > > | emerge -pv <package>
> > > |
> > > | would actually continue listing (modified normal)after finding a
> > > | dependency is masked rather than stop on, and report only, the first
> > > | one.  The masked packages would need to be marked as such [hard
> > > | masked, keyword masked], possibly shown grouped in blocks [KEYWORD,
> > > | HARD MASKED, STABLE].
> > >
> > > Problem is, once you hit one bad dependency, you can't carry on and
> > > guarantee what the rest of the dep tree is going to be. Example:
> > >
> > > emerge -pv foo
> > >
> > > foo DEPENDs upon bar and baz
> > > bar DEPENDS upon fnord, and is MASKED
> > > baz DEPENDs upon || ( gerbil fnord )
> >
> > Well, that and other semantic issues (what to do with multiple
> > candidates for example?).
>
> Multiple candidates is the most worrying for me as well. a-1.1 is masked and
> requires >=b-1.0. b has 1.0 and 1.1 both of which are masked. b-1.0 requires
> c-1.0 while b-1.1 requires c-1.1. c-1.1 masked but c-1.0 isn't. Should the
> above "keep going" just grab the highest *masked* version at each stage?
>
> Either way, while there are bugs such as error messages being truncated,
> requests such as "allow me to break my system easier" are truly far from my
> mind. Of course, supplied patches will always be reviewed.


Wait a sec --

emerge -pv means pretend, so it can't break anything.  Furthermore,
even without the -p, no one is asking it to keep on going, only asking
that it show all errors it can find before bailing.  Its current
behavior is like a compiler that aborts on the first error.  I would
rather it go on, show me all errors, until it either gets too many, or
runs out of them, rather than bailing on the first one.

Further, it would be nice if emerge behaved more like make -k, or had
an equivalent option.  It wouldn't hurt anything if it were to give up
on one package and continue to the next if possible.  If foo depends
on bar, and bar fails, sure bail on foo, but why not continue with the
next candidate if it doesn't depend on either?

I haven't used python in years, but neither request sounds like that
big a deal.

-- 
            ... _._. ._ ._. . _._. ._. ___ .__ ._. . .__. ._ .. ._.
     Felix Finch: scarecrow repairman & rocket surgeon / felix@×××××××.com
  GPG = E987 4493 C860 246C 3B1E  6477 7838 76E9 182E 8151 ITAR license #4933
I've found a solution to Fermat's Last Theorem but I see I've run out of room o
-- 
gentoo-portage-dev@g.o mailing list