| 1 |
On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 5:39 AM, Neil Bothwick <neil@××××××××××.uk> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 20:45:10 +0200, lee wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> Go ahead and show me where I have demanded something. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> Your insistence that it should be changed amounts to a demand. Your |
| 7 |
> assertion that it can be done easily only demeans the efforts of the |
| 8 |
> devs, implying that the fix is simple but they cannot be bothered. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Guys, please take a break. We're up to over 50 messages in this |
| 11 |
thread, most of which are basically a back and forth on this. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Nobody likes the output of portage here, we get it... |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
The next council meeting will include proposals to stop relying on |
| 16 |
dynamic deps, which should cut down on some of these issues. There |
| 17 |
are always ideas floating around for substantially changing how |
| 18 |
dependencies are handled in portage, and those might help. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Short-term if somebody wants to write up a wiki page full of common |
| 21 |
confusing portage error messages and improved versions of the same, |
| 22 |
and instructions on how to handle each situation, that would both help |
| 23 |
users today, and give the portage devs something to contemplate in |
| 24 |
their enhancements. There is no reason portage couldn't even figure |
| 25 |
out which case an error falls into and either output the text on the |
| 26 |
page or give the user a link to go look up instructions on how to |
| 27 |
resolve. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
I find more tends to happen when you direct your energy at creating |
| 30 |
something. Clearly you are both interested in Gentoo and going back |
| 31 |
and forth isn't helping anybody. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
Rich |
Archives