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 1KDOD6-00025h-LI for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 18:34:44 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 41C4EE0414; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 18:34:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from rv-out-0708.google.com (rv-out-0708.google.com [209.85.198.246]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12363E0414 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 18:34:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: by rv-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id b17so1318618rvf.46 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 11:34:42 -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=LGEbFdSzfRzC4EjbY+gKcLKa2oLlZs5asoUCMTiXzYk=; b=gG3PeKvri3lBM0+4gh4Ze4whfC7hg0czy4Sxo2n8dWPCKJmfaHECA5XjR+KxCktVV2 Sr1UzPesrE19k3OdxaiixvBLvZE8o1sH1XWpQpobgt8Tr6oeegaZPuvui7Ky5X1KeRpG 1yu8bIGxtidEjswlcZZPKIdKfIfsxAwarz8EE= 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=hGPQTEMNzxQHZHKaE66SO32bQq2+VJwxtpYv/YWW7LDkVH3q5QXNyfEEpfKYtsO+pv xi+TD88evonuZXcEm2jEhNrfoIN50UZSytp4ebxEea0OUdDdQX0OnF0GMfjpbDIDfnu3 nbuGlAk5pbFVTw5PnHDetnKrrRrihvB6RwHqM= Received: by 10.141.15.19 with SMTP id s19mr2904435rvi.75.1214850882645; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 11:34:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?10.0.0.3? ( [41.243.240.172]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 34sm112244yxm.0.2008.06.30.11.34.39 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Mon, 30 Jun 2008 11:34:41 -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 19:06:00 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9 References: <4867D6D9.5020301@gmail.com> <200806301757.31138.alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> <93ae19410806301102q578702d5y6d1739b27f0ee4b4@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <93ae19410806301102q578702d5y6d1739b27f0ee4b4@mail.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-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200806301906.00437.alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> X-Archives-Salt: f0688ab1-2e59-4747-8f39-b11816e6d052 X-Archives-Hash: 62ed762b66a69d35a10cc55bfca56096 On Monday 30 June 2008, brullo nulla wrote: > > 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. > > The block will in many cases affect only a branch of the dependency > tree. For example, in this case it is all blocked because glibmm > wants a masked glib. Portage knows that glibmm wants the masked glib, > so it knows that glibmm causes the trouble. So it could in principle > give me what is to update except for glibmm and glib - and give me > the error about those two. > > Am I missing something? Probably not :-) But the portage code has been described as difficult to maintain, so I suppose the correct person to ask is Zac himself. Perhaps there are tricky edge cases? -- Alan McKinnon alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list