Alan McKinnon wrote: > On 14/10/2015 03:53, Dale wrote: >> >> I started to post that it looked like some other package was pulling it >> in but portage's output is sometimes cryptic at best. Sometimes I can >> figure it out but usually, I have to get Alan or Neil to pull out their >> magic decoder ring and uncrypt the thing. >> >> Anyway, glad you got it sorted out and all is well again. > > To figure out that "required by/pulled in by/installed" listing, you > have to think like a programmer. That whole listing is not so much > portage telling you what it will do, it's portage telling you how it got > to the point where there's a problem. Think of it like debugger output - > emerge runs, there's a problem and the dev asks for a memory dump of the > dep tree emerge has evaluated so far. > > A little bit lower you find the helpful hint the some judicious > unmasking might get around it. But what's really missing is a clear > message about a mask. > > Portage is often like a 10 year old telling you why they are upset. Lots > of tears and wailing, but no real description of /why/... :-) >
Well, I did a debug dump thingy a couple times. I couldn't figure that out either. I guess that explains it. Maybe one day someone will figure out a way to improve portage's cryptic output. I suspect that whoever does that may start with a full head of hair but be bald when they get done. Then they will change something and they get to repeat that process all over again. ROFL Dale :-) :-)
