On 10/04/2015 02:18 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote: > On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 12:02:02 -0700 > Zac Medico <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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. > > > What I meant is: Generate a first dependency.badmasked list like it is > done currently. Then filter the result by ignoring/removing those that > are satisfied without use.mask & friends. > > That is: > DEPEND=" > !hardened? ( sys-apps/systemd ) >> =sys-apps/dbus-1.6.8-r1:0[systemd] > " > > will currently generate a dependency.badmasked list on hardened profiles > like: > [ ">=sys-apps/dbus-1.6.8-r1:0[systemd]" ] > > since '>=sys-apps/dbus-1.6.8-r1:0[systemd]' is satisfied when discarding > use.mask, the returned list will be empty. > > > > In the end, it is just an attempt at removing false-positives from > dependency.badmasked.
That seems reasonable. > > > >>> 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. > > > I also like those warnings :) > If we reduce the noise level as you suggest, then maybe we can keep dependency.badmasked messages enabled by default. -- Thanks, Zac
