2010-11-19 16:51:03 Zac Medico napisał(a):
> On 10/25/2010 06:24 AM, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
> > use.unsatisfiable and package.use.unsatisfiable files would cause that
> > `repoman` would treat
> > given USE flags in the same way as masked USE flags. These files wouldn't
> > affect behavior of
> > `emerge`:
> > - If user has enabled given USE flag specified in use.unsatisfiable or
> > package.use.unsatisfiable
> > and if optional dependencies controlled by this USE flag are already
> > installed or satisfiable,
> > then `emerge` will allow to install given package.
> > - If user has enabled given USE flag specified in use.unsatisfiable or
> > package.use.unsatisfiable
> > and if optional dependencies controlled by this USE flag cannot be
> > satisfied (with current
> > settings of ACCEPT_KEYWORDS, /etc/portage/package.keywords etc.), then
> > `emerge` will print
> > informative error message telling e.g. about a dependency masked by
> > ~${ARCH} keyword.
>
> Can't we print a "masked by ~${ARCH} keyword" message as you suggest,
> even without the use.unsatisfiable data? If so, then isn't
> use.unsatisfiable redundant? Your patch [1] seems to behave exactly like
> use.mask, so I don't see any value added.repoman sometimes needs to allow stable packages to have optional dependencies on unstable packages (usually until these packages are stabilized). My patch implements this functionality for repoman. -- Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
