On Friday 04 November 2005 22:33, Marius Mauch wrote: > Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 23:14:20 -0800 Brian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > | emerge -pv <package> > > | > > | would actually continue listing (modified normal)after finding a > > | dependency is masked rather than stop on, and report only, the first > > | one. The masked packages would need to be marked as such [hard > > | masked, keyword masked], possibly shown grouped in blocks [KEYWORD, > > | HARD MASKED, STABLE]. > > > > Problem is, once you hit one bad dependency, you can't carry on and > > guarantee what the rest of the dep tree is going to be. Example: > > > > emerge -pv foo > > > > foo DEPENDs upon bar and baz > > bar DEPENDS upon fnord, and is MASKED > > baz DEPENDs upon || ( gerbil fnord ) > > Well, that and other semantic issues (what to do with multiple > candidates for example?).
Multiple candidates is the most worrying for me as well. a-1.1 is masked and requires >=b-1.0. b has 1.0 and 1.1 both of which are masked. b-1.0 requires c-1.0 while b-1.1 requires c-1.1. c-1.1 masked but c-1.0 isn't. Should the above "keep going" just grab the highest *masked* version at each stage? Either way, while there are bugs such as error messages being truncated, requests such as "allow me to break my system easier" are truly far from my mind. Of course, supplied patches will always be reviewed. -- Jason Stubbs -- gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
