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