| 1 |
On Thursday 10 April 2008, Peter Humphrey wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thursday 10 April 2008 08:30:21 Iain Buchanan wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Thu, 2008-04-10 at 09:11 +0200, Uwe Thiem wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > Emerge clearly said that gtk-doc-am blocked gtk-doc, not the |
| 5 |
> > > other way round. |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > gtk-doc-am _does_ block gtk-doc. Since you already have gtk-doc |
| 8 |
> > installed, gtk-doc-am couldn't go ahead. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> This is not sensible. If Uwe says "A blocks B", it means that A is |
| 11 |
> getting in the way of B, not the other way around. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
No, that's incorrect. I think you are attaching an incorrect meaning to |
| 14 |
the output wording. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
In this case, A's ebuild DEPENDs on !B |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
The error output has to come from A's ebuild as that is where the block |
| 19 |
comes from, and the standard wording is "A blocks B" as in: A's ebuild |
| 20 |
says it cannot be merged if B is already there. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
B does not block A as B's ebuild did not know about A when it was |
| 23 |
written. B does nto have a problem with A, instead A knows it has a |
| 24 |
problem with B. You should read "block" in emerge output as a synonym |
| 25 |
for "incompatible with" rather than "gets in the way of" as you appear |
| 26 |
to be doing. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
Alan McKinnon |
| 30 |
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
gentoo-user@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives