| 1 |
On 27/09/2015 21:17, lee wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
[big snip] |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
>> Seems to me you are thinking like a human (because you are one) and not |
| 8 |
>> > seeing portage's limits. Portage has no idea what would solve the issue |
| 9 |
>> > so can't give any recommendations worth a damn. The best it can do is |
| 10 |
>> > print some hardcoded logic that looks like it might apply. |
| 11 |
> According to that, the human is even less able to figure out what might |
| 12 |
> solve the problem than portage is: The human doesn't know anything about |
| 13 |
> the huge number of dependencies involved, and even if they did, it would |
| 14 |
> take them really really long to go through all of them to figure out |
| 15 |
> anything at all. Now if they do it right, the human would come to the |
| 16 |
> same conclusion as portage, provided that portage does it right. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
[big snip] |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Fellow, I'm done with you, really. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
You hold onto your issues with portage like they were some treasured |
| 24 |
memory of a long-since departed loved one, while all the time apparently |
| 25 |
ignoring the correct valid solutions offeered by kind folks on this list. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Let it go. The devs know about portage output. I don't see you |
| 28 |
submitting patches though. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
Alan McKinnon |
| 32 |
alan.mckinnon@×××××.com |
Archives