From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91234138247 for ; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 15:07:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id BC1FCE0B23; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 15:07:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C3C96E0B15 for ; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 15:07:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.223] (126.170.16.95.dynamic.jazztel.es [95.16.170.126]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: pacho) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1323033EF28 for ; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 15:07:44 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <1383577661.914.0.camel@belkin5> Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [IDEA] Enumerate solutions for blockers, to avoid tedious manual work. From: Pacho Ramos To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2013 16:07:41 +0100 In-Reply-To: <5277B6B8.3000804@gentoo.org> References: <5274FB3D.8080508@gentoo.org> <20131102145126.3c1f6cd7@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> <20131102160330.0e6eaa5e@gentoo.org> <52760EF9.4030908@gmail.com> <20131103131057.4e71d3ec@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> <5277B6B8.3000804@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.8.5 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archives-Salt: da6a06b7-339b-4c9e-ae1e-8951f7661cee X-Archives-Hash: e089334c409c4b766d95192f9e7cc492 El lun, 04-11-2013 a las 10:01 -0500, Ian Stakenvicius escribió: > On 03/11/13 07:10 AM, Tom Wijsman wrote: > > On Sun, 03 Nov 2013 10:53:13 +0200 Alan McKinnon > > wrote: > > > >> On 02/11/2013 17:03, Michał Górny wrote: Sadly, it's somewhat > >> common for (newish) users to not know what to do with that. > >> Blocker output can be quite daunting in the beginning, especially > >> if it's in the middle of 20 other things portage is also > >> updating. > > > > +1 I agree, we should look into having errors not only tell what > > we should not do, but also tell what we could do; every time I see > > a blocker it is annoying that I have to go manually search the > > solution. > > > > This sounds like a great idea. > > However, let's first get Portage to stop dumping out massive amounts > of useless and/or meaningless slot collision messages first, seemingly > *whenever* there is some other random and unrelated blockage > triggered. Dropping the extra noise will help a lot I think to make > things more clear. > I agree, but I think a bug was already opened due that and wasn't so easy to solve :( (not sure if Zac will read this to clarify). I think it was a problem due backtracking code