Re: [gentoo-user] Portage autounmask is strange again

[Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com>]

Sebastian Beßler wrote:
> Am 16.08.2011 02:18, schrieb Dale:
>    
>> Sebastian Beßler wrote:
>>      
>>> But why was autounmask=y complaining but not autounmask=n?
>>> The dependency of the virtual was missing both times so shouldn't emerge
>>> spit some error out both times?
>>>
>>> Greetings
>>>
>>> Sebastian
>>>
>>>
>>>        
>> Because autounmask=n assumes you don't want to upgrade anything that is
>> masked so it didn't suggest it.
>>      
> But there was a broken dependency, not just something that could be
> upgraded. autounmask=y now, after setting the virtual to -~amd64 too, is
> quiet and doesn't tells me to unmask anything.
>
> Still think that emerge should have thrown an error both times, but if
> it is ok for anyone here that it doesn't then it is ok for me too ;-)
>
>    

Well, it could be that I'm reading the error incorrectly too.  Ask 
people how much fun it is for me to figure out what the heck portage is 
puking on my keyboard.  I have had Alan explain it to me, what he says 
makes sense but it just goes right over my head.  I have learned that 
sometimes portage pukes backward tho.  I call that eating but portage 
disagrees with me.  ;-)   One could read a lot into that couldn't they?  
It's pretty deep.  lol

>> Ain't life confusing?
>>      
> Yes, yes it is!
>
>    

Yep, portage confuses me a lot. This is life.

Dale

:-)  :-)