From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1KDN8u-0004xh-HH for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 17:26:20 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6BA74E0454; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 17:26:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from rv-out-0708.google.com (rv-out-0708.google.com [209.85.198.250]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38FD0E0454 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 17:26:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: by rv-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id b17so1294117rvf.46 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:26:18 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:from:to:subject:date :user-agent:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:message-id; bh=K0bG7T6a69NvwBgKY/v3wEgoqkLGplP3WMsBmArJEmw=; b=yEabigIH9vkKeI5cGdLebCx47aFIkPtSL6tjBkdrKhvWlU9LmXT6rbkXUpQSJtl+UU 6cnDnR25Hqfcawq0/sGPFNUZ1VqpT2taNiekJhDwNWkNEHOXf9BKPG01DprstzHix8xa Oj67XTcZ/bTO8m470izkQiy50IuVXEjH2/yxw= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=from:to:subject:date:user-agent:references:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :message-id; b=Z6Sx5dIFJ32SOi5mzfdCCg1s56KT64FCuCO2oB/YDBW0814KA+lqKKKiEaMW0EAFmK fbADx/iyccwBxTCMM/SLSWwlpje9nwBHacsauCGO7/VULuEMuMOpUCdj3VjLRAOxDHvc Pe4u5fwi9snM5UQwoyk2BV4PU6KRY4K5iGEDU= Received: by 10.140.201.1 with SMTP id y1mr2818330rvf.200.1214846778815; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:26:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?10.0.0.3? ( [41.243.240.172]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 33sm787571yxr.3.2008.06.30.10.26.09 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:26:18 -0700 (PDT) From: Alan McKinnon To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] unstable glib pulled down, but why? Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 17:57:30 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9 References: <4867D6D9.5020301@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4867D6D9.5020301@gmail.com> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200806301757.31138.alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> X-Archives-Salt: 86ccd698-45f3-47de-8455-29edb0cede95 X-Archives-Hash: 1602322d44d29f12d6597abb50663a2f On Sunday 29 June 2008, b.n. wrote: > By the way: I find the fact "emerge -pv" just fails in those cases > extremly annoying. Shoudn't it report the error, skip offending > packages but let me see what can be happily merged independently of > that? Seems a reasonable question, but will be almost impossible to implement, as how would you define a package that can "be happily merged independently" of a blocking package? portage is software, it isn't intelligent so it doesn't know how to answer that. I admit it's annoying though. -- Alan McKinnon alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list