| 1 |
On Wednesday 22 Jun 2011 13:41:57 Alan McKinnon wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wednesday 22 June 2011 14:22:00 Daniel Pielmeier did opine thusly: |
| 3 |
> > > Portage has always displayed the latter right? That makes sense |
| 4 |
> > > - you can see what the emerge command would do as entered and |
| 5 |
> > > compare it to the error to see what the problem is. In this |
| 6 |
> > > case it's a tweak to package.use which I'm perfectly happy to |
| 7 |
> > > do. |
| 8 |
> > > |
| 9 |
> > > I think it's bug time, portage is displaying the wrong output |
| 10 |
> > > for |
| 11 |
> > > failures. |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> > You can try if you get the desired output if FEATURES="-autounmask". |
| 14 |
> > If you enable autounmask portage automatically enableds the |
| 15 |
> > required changes and tells you the changes required to your |
| 16 |
> > configuration. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> It is unset here (well, it's not set, actually - same thing) |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> I'm a sysadmin, I have an inherent distrust of all things software and |
| 21 |
> automagic-config-changers are scary things indeed :-) |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
I'd include eselect in this. There's probably nothing scary about it, but it |
| 24 |
does make me feel nervous when I *have* to use it ... ;-) |
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
Regards, |
| 27 |
Mick |
Archives