| 1 |
Alan McKinnon wrote: |
| 2 |
> Sadly, you don't know. There is no clue in any of the output you |
| 3 |
> posted that this is required, so your only solution is to ask the |
| 4 |
> collective memory of the community. Lucky for you and others, Jonathan |
| 5 |
> was aware of the problem and was kind enough to post the solution. |
| 6 |
> This is one of the things that is starting to real get on my damn tits |
| 7 |
> about portage, for about 2 years now. It's not an easy problem to |
| 8 |
> solve, and to be honest, portage is not helping at all. You have two |
| 9 |
> options in running it: don't use -v and get very little info, or use |
| 10 |
> -v and get a terminal dump of the entire graph tree with lots of stuff |
| 11 |
> and zero real information about how to solve it. Look at my thread |
| 12 |
> with Dale just the other day, I managed to help him with the correct |
| 13 |
> answer because I had a magic brainwave to search for the "<" |
| 14 |
> character. Seriously, what kind of process would ever use that as a |
| 15 |
> problem solving approach? In your case, the solution is in the ebuild |
| 16 |
> for acpupsd and it's specific DEPENDs. Now, I'm generally OK with |
| 17 |
> looking in ebuilds for real answers and have gotten used to it, but |
| 18 |
> ffs I should not have to do that. Well-written software should provide |
| 19 |
> that information in it's output, and it shouldn't be hard to get the |
| 20 |
> software to do it. Ok, rant over. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
+1 and you dang skippy, pat on the back etc etc etc. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Dale |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
:-) :-) |
Archives