On 23/03/2015 11:55, Peter Humphrey wrote: > On Sunday 22 March 2015 23:22:33 Alan McKinnon wrote: > >> 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. > > Sounds like you're volunteering, Alan. ;-)
I do have some of the required skills, and I have free time right now. Maybe I'll have a deeper look into portage's code with a view to improving this area. No promises thought :-) -- Alan McKinnon [email protected]
