On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 1:38 PM, Tom Wijsman <[email protected]> wrote: > 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).
Then to answer your previous question: it would suggest it [something broken, according to you] because you've asked for something broken that depends on it! >> 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 explicitly saying that I want libXt with USE=abi_x86_32. Suggesting that I turn it off is kind of ridiculous, don't you think? This seems pretty clear cut. Are you just jerking me around now?
