1 |
On 23/03/2015 11:55, Peter Humphrey wrote: |
2 |
> On Sunday 22 March 2015 23:22:33 Alan McKinnon wrote: |
3 |
> |
4 |
>> This is one of the things that is starting to real get on my damn tits |
5 |
>> about portage, for about 2 years now. It's not an easy problem to solve, |
6 |
>> and to be honest, portage is not helping at all. You have two options in |
7 |
>> running it: don't use -v and get very little info, or use -v and get a |
8 |
>> terminal dump of the entire graph tree with lots of stuff and zero real |
9 |
>> information about how to solve it. Look at my thread with Dale just the |
10 |
>> other day, I managed to help him with the correct answer because I had a |
11 |
>> magic brainwave to search for the "<" character. |
12 |
>> |
13 |
>> Seriously, what kind of process would ever use that as a problem solving |
14 |
>> approach? |
15 |
>> |
16 |
>> In your case, the solution is in the ebuild for acpupsd and it's |
17 |
>> specific DEPENDs. Now, I'm generally OK with looking in ebuilds for real |
18 |
>> answers and have gotten used to it, but ffs I should not have to do |
19 |
>> that. Well-written software should provide that information in it's |
20 |
>> output, and it shouldn't be hard to get the software to do it. |
21 |
>> |
22 |
>> Ok, rant over. |
23 |
> |
24 |
> Sounds like you're volunteering, Alan. ;-) |
25 |
|
26 |
|
27 |
I do have some of the required skills, and I have free time right now. |
28 |
|
29 |
Maybe I'll have a deeper look into portage's code with a view to |
30 |
improving this area. No promises thought :-) |
31 |
|
32 |
|
33 |
|
34 |
-- |
35 |
Alan McKinnon |
36 |
alan.mckinnon@×××××.com |