| 1 |
Alan McKinnon wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 14/10/2015 03:53, Dale wrote: |
| 3 |
>> |
| 4 |
>> I started to post that it looked like some other package was pulling it |
| 5 |
>> in but portage's output is sometimes cryptic at best. Sometimes I can |
| 6 |
>> figure it out but usually, I have to get Alan or Neil to pull out their |
| 7 |
>> magic decoder ring and uncrypt the thing. |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
>> Anyway, glad you got it sorted out and all is well again. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> To figure out that "required by/pulled in by/installed" listing, you |
| 12 |
> have to think like a programmer. That whole listing is not so much |
| 13 |
> portage telling you what it will do, it's portage telling you how it got |
| 14 |
> to the point where there's a problem. Think of it like debugger output - |
| 15 |
> emerge runs, there's a problem and the dev asks for a memory dump of the |
| 16 |
> dep tree emerge has evaluated so far. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> A little bit lower you find the helpful hint the some judicious |
| 19 |
> unmasking might get around it. But what's really missing is a clear |
| 20 |
> message about a mask. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> Portage is often like a 10 year old telling you why they are upset. Lots |
| 23 |
> of tears and wailing, but no real description of /why/... :-) |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Well, I did a debug dump thingy a couple times. I couldn't figure that |
| 28 |
out either. I guess that explains it. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Maybe one day someone will figure out a way to improve portage's cryptic |
| 31 |
output. I suspect that whoever does that may start with a full head of |
| 32 |
hair but be bald when they get done. Then they will change something |
| 33 |
and they get to repeat that process all over again. ROFL |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Dale |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
:-) :-) |
Archives