1 |
On 28/10/2017 19:58, Wols Lists wrote: |
2 |
> On 28/10/17 15:52, Andrew Savchenko wrote: |
3 |
>> On Fri, 27 Oct 2017 14:58:13 +0100 Peter Humphrey wrote: |
4 |
>>>> On Fri, 27 Oct 2017 12:52:54 -0000 |
5 |
>>>> Helmut Jarausch <jarausch@××××××.be> wrote: |
6 |
>>>> |
7 |
>>>>>> I have a problem with emerge for a long time. |
8 |
>>>>>> Sometimes I need to (re-)emerge many packages like in an |
9 |
>>>>>> emerge --emptytree @world |
10 |
>>>>>> |
11 |
>>>>>> Because I use several overlays, there are problems with a lot of |
12 |
>>>>>> packages. |
13 |
>>>>>> Unfortunately, emerge shows me just the first problem (like a missing |
14 |
>>>>>> USE-flags) and then terminates. |
15 |
>>>>>> Is there any means to let emerge go and report several (all) problems |
16 |
>>>>>> which are independent of each other? |
17 |
>>>> |
18 |
>>>> EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS="--keep-going" ? |
19 |
>> No, --keep-going allows to continue as long as possible after a |
20 |
>> build failure. Helmut asks about dependecies resolution failures, |
21 |
>> e.g. in some package REQUIRED_USE is not met, or circular |
22 |
>> dependency occurs and so on. |
23 |
> |
24 |
> What I would like - a bit like --keep-going - is some option that tries |
25 |
> again. |
26 |
> |
27 |
> When I do an "emerge -u" it sometimes blows up with this massive load of |
28 |
> dependency failures. So what I end up doing is emerge a few packages |
29 |
> that look like they're going to work, and then try my full update again. |
30 |
> After several cycles through this, suddenly everything works. |
31 |
> |
32 |
> So my spec for what I would like is basically, as each package |
33 |
> successfully resolves its dependencies, add it to a "try again" list. If |
34 |
> the current list blows up in dependency hell, restart the emerge with |
35 |
> just the packages in the "try again" list. |
36 |
|
37 |
|
38 |
That is completely contrary to how portage is supposed to work and |
39 |
produces an unpredictable result. |
40 |
|
41 |
*You* know what you want and can do it, *you* are a human with a brain |
42 |
who understands meaning. |
43 |
|
44 |
Portage cannot do that, it is backed by silicon and has no concept of |
45 |
meaning. So it has only one real choice - it can do it all or it does |
46 |
not try. |
47 |
|
48 |
I'm not surprised Zac never tried implementing partial graph resolution |
49 |
for the very simple reason that if you try do it, you have no idea what |
50 |
is going to be built. That is the opposite of what portage must deliver. |
51 |
-- |
52 |
Alan McKinnon |
53 |
alan.mckinnon@×××××.com |