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 9FA83138247 for ; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 15:20:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2CC3CE0B27; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 15:20:47 +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 4FE67E0B1A for ; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 15:20:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.160] (CPE002401f30b73-CM001cea3ddad8.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com [99.224.181.112]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: axs) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 40BD633F033 for ; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 15:20:45 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <5277BB38.2090601@gentoo.org> Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2013 10:20:24 -0500 From: Ian Stakenvicius User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20131005 Thunderbird/17.0.9 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 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [IDEA] Enumerate solutions for blockers, to avoid tedious manual work. 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> <1383577661.914.0.camel@belkin5> In-Reply-To: <1383577661.914.0.camel@belkin5> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archives-Salt: bcb50082-9eb1-4c5f-95f1-9bb6fb168970 X-Archives-Hash: 61042b42a6905784b52f61ae4fac7658 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 04/11/13 10:07 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote: > 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 > > Oh absolutely -- i figured this isn't a trivial issue. :) But it does seem like something we will need to fix (that is, ensuring that blocker or conflict messages shown are -only- the ones that are actually relevant) before being able to make the messages themselves more user friendly and instructive. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iF4EAREIAAYFAlJ3uzgACgkQ2ugaI38ACPCGWQEAnIq5wGnsInGVH0j/yE8wY/ln uHkCGQOF3NSKb4zMvVEA/jkBKcA8nvnzepFlkQO1TEzzTlRhOJP82WXcbNS5K2KF =nNGm -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----