Alan McKinnon wrote: > Sadly, you don't know. There is no clue in any of the output you > posted that this is required, so your only solution is to ask the > collective memory of the community. Lucky for you and others, Jonathan > was aware of the problem and was kind enough to post the solution. > This is one of the things that is starting to real get on my damn tits > about portage, for about 2 years now. It's not an easy problem to > solve, and to be honest, portage is not helping at all. You have two > options in running it: don't use -v and get very little info, or use > -v and get a terminal dump of the entire graph tree with lots of stuff > and zero real information about how to solve it. Look at my thread > with Dale just the other day, I managed to help him with the correct > answer because I had a magic brainwave to search for the "<" > character. Seriously, what kind of process would ever use that as a > problem solving approach? In your case, the solution is in the ebuild > for acpupsd and it's specific DEPENDs. Now, I'm generally OK with > looking in ebuilds for real answers and have gotten used to it, but > ffs I should not have to do that. Well-written software should provide > that information in it's output, and it shouldn't be hard to get the > software to do it. Ok, rant over.
+1 and you dang skippy, pat on the back etc etc etc. Dale :-) :-)
