| 1 |
Alan McKinnon ha scritto: |
| 2 |
> On Monday 30 June 2008, brullo nulla wrote: |
| 3 |
>> The block will in many cases affect only a branch of the dependency |
| 4 |
>> tree. For example, in this case it is all blocked because glibmm |
| 5 |
>> wants a masked glib. Portage knows that glibmm wants the masked glib, |
| 6 |
>> so it knows that glibmm causes the trouble. So it could in principle |
| 7 |
>> give me what is to update except for glibmm and glib - and give me |
| 8 |
>> the error about those two. |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
>> Am I missing something? |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Probably not :-) |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> But the portage code has been described as difficult to maintain, so I |
| 15 |
> suppose the correct person to ask is Zac himself. Perhaps there are |
| 16 |
> tricky edge cases? |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Maybe. It could be a toggable feature. |
| 19 |
It is often said the current state of Portage code is quite messy. I |
| 20 |
don't know, never read it. I'd like to contribute them a bit (I know |
| 21 |
some Python) but if experienced Portage developers are in fear of |
| 22 |
touching code, I wouldn't probably be of help. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
I wonder if Paludis does what I say. Could it be the day I switch... |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
(If only there was a Python portage replacement... a Portage-ng project?) |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
m. |
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
gentoo-user@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives