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 72700138247 for ; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 06:27:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B3669E0B43; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 06:26:52 +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 BC83AE0B33 for ; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 06:26:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D22DB33F153 for ; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 06:26:50 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new using ClamAV at gentoo.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.659 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.659 tagged_above=-999 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=-0.656, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([IPv6:::ffff:127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [IPv6:::ffff:127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FlSWs_GUHABN for ; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 06:26:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from plane.gmane.org (plane.gmane.org [80.91.229.3]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2531B33F14E for ; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 06:26:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1VeJ36-00040J-EG for gentoo-user@gentoo.org; Thu, 07 Nov 2013 07:26:36 +0100 Received: from lounge.imp.fu-berlin.de ([160.45.42.83]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 07 Nov 2013 07:26:36 +0100 Received: from vaeth by lounge.imp.fu-berlin.de with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 07 Nov 2013 07:26:36 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org From: Martin Vaeth Subject: [gentoo-user] Re: do subslots improve user-experience? Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 06:26:13 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <5274EA64.6000404@gentoo.org> <5274FB18.1070102@gmail.com> <5276AA1D.2020907@gmail.com> <5278C523.8070906@gmail.com> <20131105131118.165c5abf@marcec> <5279045B.7030807@gmail.com> <20131106125035.2ccb756a@marcec> <527A875E.2000501@gmail.com> X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: lounge.imp.fu-berlin.de User-Agent: slrn/pre1.0.0-26 (Linux) 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 X-Archives-Salt: 86334959-e500-4ea9-a7ff-d9d4a980bcc2 X-Archives-Hash: c446516cfe4fdeccb213168d1fd2aed8 Alan McKinnon wrote: > On 06/11/2013 14:54, Martin Vaeth wrote: >> (I am guessing this only from the outputs which are posted): >> >> When portage detects that it cannot resolve something after >> backtracking, it dies. > > That by itself is good info. > > The conflict that portage couldn't resolve, is it the first one in the > printed list, or the last? I never looked at the algorithm, it is only a guess from the output. So I do no know the answer, and it does not matter, because every conflict which portage detects might be related to the actual cause or not: The algorithm with branch-cutting did not resolve the conflict, so every inconsistency which is left might or might not be related to the real obstacle which the user wants to remove. Most likely this obstacle is higher in the tree than the place where the conflict occurs (otherwise portage could resolve it or make a suggestion how to resolve it). In my experience, something related with the actual obstacle occurs rather late in the output or not at all.