On 10/03/2015 02:38 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 16:54:30 -0700
> Zac Medico <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
>> On 10/02/2015 04:40 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 13:08:29 -0700
>>> Zac Medico <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/02/2015 07:49 AM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>
>>>>> I am getting the output below when I run repoman full for
>>>>> sys-apps/systemd.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is basically telling me that systemd (which is masked in the
>>>>> selinux profiles) cannot depend on sys-apps/dbus[systemd], because
>>>>> the systemd use flag is also masked.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's perfectly fine and I suppose it is valid, but there is
>>>>> nothing I can do to resolve it and I don't need to be reminded of
>>>>> it every time I run repoman.
>>>>>
>>>>> Does anyone find dependency.badmasked useful?
>>>>
>>>> Possibly, if I wanted to see dependency issues for masked packages.
>>>
>>>
>>> why not also ignore *use.mask along with package.mask for this
>>> check ?
>>>
>>
>> Can you give a concrete example? I'm having a hard time thinking up a
>> reason to ignore use.mask.
> 
> Well, ignoring completely use.mask won't work: people use it because
> the dep doesnt work and thus has missing keywords.
> 
> But, maybe something in between could work: drop dependency.badmasked
> warnings that are satisfied when ignoring use.mask.

Yeah, I guess that might work as an alternative to suppressing all
dependency.badmasked messages by default. We would need another option
to enable such warnings.

Introducing special cases for use.mask/use.force like this is not as
simple as it might seem. If we simply discard use.force and use.mask,
then it can trigger other kinds of warnings. For example, consider a
dependency like this:

!hardened? ( sys-apps/systemd )

If we were to discard hardened from use.force, then repoman will show an
error for this dependency being unsatisfied on hardened profiles. We get
analogous problems when we discard flags from use.mask.

> Is there anything I'm missing ?

Maybe it's better to keep things a little simpler, and just suppress all
dependency.badmasked messages by default.
-- 
Thanks,
Zac

Reply via email to