| 1 |
On Sunday 22 March 2015 23:22:33 Alan McKinnon wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> This is one of the things that is starting to real get on my damn tits |
| 4 |
> about portage, for about 2 years now. It's not an easy problem to solve, |
| 5 |
> and to be honest, portage is not helping at all. You have two options in |
| 6 |
> running it: don't use -v and get very little info, or use -v and get a |
| 7 |
> terminal dump of the entire graph tree with lots of stuff and zero real |
| 8 |
> information about how to solve it. Look at my thread with Dale just the |
| 9 |
> other day, I managed to help him with the correct answer because I had a |
| 10 |
> magic brainwave to search for the "<" character. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Seriously, what kind of process would ever use that as a problem solving |
| 13 |
> approach? |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> In your case, the solution is in the ebuild for acpupsd and it's |
| 16 |
> specific DEPENDs. Now, I'm generally OK with looking in ebuilds for real |
| 17 |
> answers and have gotten used to it, but ffs I should not have to do |
| 18 |
> that. Well-written software should provide that information in it's |
| 19 |
> output, and it shouldn't be hard to get the software to do it. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> Ok, rant over. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Sounds like you're volunteering, Alan. ;-) |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
Rgds |
| 27 |
Peter. |
Archives