From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1QtEBb-00015t-Go for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 16 Aug 2011 07:35:43 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 0518221C044; Tue, 16 Aug 2011 07:35:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-yx0-f181.google.com (mail-yx0-f181.google.com [209.85.213.181]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC90E21C2CE for ; Tue, 16 Aug 2011 07:33:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: by yxi13 with SMTP id 13so4795855yxi.40 for ; Tue, 16 Aug 2011 00:33:27 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=GyU8s8W2eFGKc8rA+vrq6l12tS2rix/MKPSlGX4cKjU=; b=nUQbsJ79s1TzjBGFPVbvv7MSl8q3JdGjt79MkHGaKMrtwIS6qkYjehPvCQnUo11Pn3 7STUjgf3X3dxmY4+rvtzrbPyOLFgE2/W9LZLz6VjoyQIiBMYInAP2l3xPpJO4azS9xq5 Q9F/iTbpzgmiigvg3h+stH06RJISDs5Im1W54= Received: by 10.236.147.229 with SMTP id t65mr15144505yhj.181.1313480007145; Tue, 16 Aug 2011 00:33:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.2.5] (adsl-65-0-116-190.jan.bellsouth.net [65.0.116.190]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id e21sm1100339yhn.77.2011.08.16.00.33.25 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 16 Aug 2011 00:33:26 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4E4A1D42.7010206@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 02:33:22 -0500 From: Dale User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.19) Gecko/20110708 Gentoo/2.0.14-r1 SeaMonkey/2.0.14 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 To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Portage autounmask is strange again References: <4E4957F9.4020505@darkmetatron.de> <4E499DA7.2090302@darkmetatron.de> <4E49B773.8090802@gmail.com> <4E4A09AF.3020104@darkmetatron.de> In-Reply-To: <4E4A09AF.3020104@darkmetatron.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: 0ed81c84e5ec15ee24c5a56483b060d2 Sebastian Be=DFler wrote: > Am 16.08.2011 02:18, schrieb Dale: > =20 >> Sebastian Be=DFler wrote: >> =20 >>> But why was autounmask=3Dy complaining but not autounmask=3Dn? >>> The dependency of the virtual was missing both times so shouldn't eme= rge >>> spit some error out both times? >>> >>> Greetings >>> >>> Sebastian >>> >>> >>> =20 >> Because autounmask=3Dn assumes you don't want to upgrade anything that= is >> masked so it didn't suggest it. >> =20 > But there was a broken dependency, not just something that could be > upgraded. autounmask=3Dy 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 ;-) > > =20 Well, it could be that I'm reading the error incorrectly too. Ask=20 people how much fun it is for me to figure out what the heck portage is=20 puking on my keyboard. I have had Alan explain it to me, what he says=20 makes sense but it just goes right over my head. I have learned that=20 sometimes portage pukes backward tho. I call that eating but portage=20 disagrees with me. ;-) One could read a lot into that couldn't they? =20 It's pretty deep. lol >> Ain't life confusing? >> =20 > Yes, yes it is! > > =20 Yep, portage confuses me a lot. This is life. Dale :-) :-)