On Fri, 15 Nov 2013 13:21:53 -0800 Matt Turner <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Tom Wijsman <[email protected]> > wrote: > > On Fri, 15 Nov 2013 12:25:47 -0800 > > Matt Turner <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 12:00 PM, Tom Wijsman <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> Imagine I had simply forgotten to unmask the abi_x86_32 USE flag > >> for kbproto but was attempting to emerge unstable (or unmasked > >> abi_x86_32) libXt. In fact, if I un-unmask kbproto (so that > >> abi_x86_32 is masked), unmerge kbproto and attempt to emerge libXt: > >> > >> [...] > >> > >> emerge: there are no ebuilds built with USE flags to satisfy > >> "x11-proto/kbproto[abi_x86_32(-)?,abi_x86_64(-)?,abi_x86_x32(-)?,abi_mips_n32(-)?,abi_mips_n64(-)?,abi_mips_o32(-)?]". > >> !!! One of the following packages is required to complete your > >> request: > >> - x11-libs/libXt-1.1.4::gentoo (Change USE: -abi_x86_32) > >> (dependency required by "x11-libs/libXt-1.1.4" [ebuild]) > >> (dependency required by "libXt" [argument]) > >> > >> It suggests that I turn off abi_x86_32 for libXt rather than > >> telling me to turn the flag on for kbproto! > > > > Why should it literally suggest you to do something known to be > > broken? > > I don't know what you mean. kbproto[abi_x86_32] isn't known to be > broken. You're asking a really weird question based on some implicit > context that's not available to me. A mask implies something is broken (or experimental). > I'm claiming in this example that attempting to emerge > libXt[abi_x86_32], portage should tell you that abi_x86_32 should be > set for kbproto, rather than telling you to unset abi_x86_32 for libXt > (which you're requesting to be emerged, damn it!). You have to be explicit when you want broken (or experimental) things; just emerging it isn't enough, taking a step further than that is. I'm not sure if making broken (or experimental) things more easily available or a suggestion would be a good idea; people already have enough trouble as it is, adding more doesn't seem to be the right way. > > It is clear from the output how it wants the dependency to be; so, > > if you want to do something different, you can and the output tells > > enough. > > > > Due to the complexity of the dependency, you will need `man 5 > > ebuild` though; (-) means to assume it as disabled if it doesn't > > exist. > > > >> Portage prints other things intelligently: > >> > >> mattst88@dynamic71 ~ % FEATURES=test emerge dev-python/py -vp > >> > >> These are the packages that would be merged, in order: > >> > >> Calculating dependencies... done! > >> > >> > >> [nomerge ] dev-python/py-1.4.13 USE="{test}" > >> PYTHON_TARGETS="python2_7 python3_2 (-pypy2_0) -python2_6 > >> (-python3_3)" > >> [ebuild N ] dev-python/pytest-2.3.5 USE="{test} -doc" > >> PYTHON_TARGETS="python2_7 python3_2 (-pypy2_0) -python2_6 > >> (-python3_3)" 417 kB > >> [ebuild N ] dev-python/py-1.4.13 USE="{test}" > >> PYTHON_TARGETS="python2_7 python3_2 (-pypy2_0) -python2_6 > >> (-python3_3)" 185 kB > >> > >> Total: 2 packages (2 new), Size of downloads: 602 kB > >> > >> * Error: circular dependencies: > >> > >> (dev-python/py-1.4.13::gentoo, ebuild scheduled for merge) depends > >> on (dev-python/pytest-2.3.5::gentoo, ebuild scheduled for merge) > >> (buildtime) (dev-python/py-1.4.13::gentoo, ebuild scheduled for > >> merge) (buildtime) > >> > >> It might be possible to break this cycle > >> by applying the following change: > >> - dev-python/py-1.4.13 (Change USE: -test) > >> > >> Note that this change can be reverted, once the package has been > >> installed. > > > > This is just like how you can't compile gcc without having compiled > > gcc with another compiler first (or used a binpkg, or obtained from > > stage3); thus, similarly, you can't test py without having pytest > > first etc... > > I don't think you understood my intention for giving this example. > Portage correctly figures out the proper solution and suggests it. I'm > saying that this is a good thing. Now the question is whether this is or isn't an opposite example; because it might very well be intelligent, that doesn't mean that the other example isn't intelligent. As we trying to make that clear, this example doesn't really fit; so, I didn't assume it to be opposite. -- With kind regards, Tom Wijsman (TomWij) Gentoo Developer E-mail address : [email protected] GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
