Re: [gentoo-dev] xorg-x11-7 emerge blocks

[Dan Armak <danarmak@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1588 bytes --]

On Tuesday 25 October 2005 01:45, Ferris McCormick wrote:
> Well, maybe so.  However that missing '<' is kind of important
Indeed - and it has nothing to do with modular X. There are other !<foo-N deps 
in portage.

> , and when 
> playing with X-modular, the portage output really looks like the modular
> packages are blocking the non-existent xorg-x11-7. It's not a "matter of 
> using portage correctly" because portage is misreporting the (phantom)
> problem.
>
> As I recall, it looks like this (for example):
> x11-base/xorg-server-xxx [B x11-base/xorg-x11-7]
> which without that little '<' is, shall we say, wrong.  
Example output from the OP:

[blocks B     ] <x11-base/xorg-x11-7 (is blocking x11-proto/kbproto-1.0-r1)

The < is there, and portage isn't misreporting. You just have to read 
carefully. 

> Since (so far as I 
> know) it arises only in the X-modular context, this is the right place for
> the question.  (With '<' it's true but irrelevant, but portage is being
> misled into believing xorg-x11 is required.  R. Hill addressed that issue
> in another post.)
>
> Or maybe it arises elsewhere too?
# find /usr/portage -name '*.ebuild' | xargs grep -He '!\w*<'
gives lots of results.

xorg-x11-7 is probably the only case where the max version being blocked (7) 
doesn't exist. But that doesn't stop one from understanding the < blocking 
dep.

-- 
Dan Armak
Gentoo Linux developer (KDE)
Public GPG key: http://dev.gentoo.org/~danarmak/danarmak-gpg-public.key
Fingerprint: DD70 DBF9 E3D4 6CB9 2FDD  0069 508D 9143 8D5F 8951

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]