On Sat, 2005-05-11 at 01:55 +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote: > 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? >
Isn't that what users end up with after adding each package to package.keywords then emerge-pv <package> again, and again... unless they do detailed research for each failed dep. I know I never looked that close at the packages each time it happened as long as it wasn't hard masked. > 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 Well, I don't know that I could supply patches to portage. I have enough to keep track of in porthole let alone learn the intricacies of package management. It sounds like this is something easier done in porthole where we can display all relevant packages in a dialog with checkboxes for package selection and possibly an adjustable search depth. That way package research could be done in porthole's main window to help decide whether they wish to proceed and or which version to select. A real world example is gnome-base/gnome. The last couple updates have resulted in numerous masked packages needed to be added to package.keywords. Thanks for your time and input everyone. -- Brian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
