On 27/09/2015 21:17, lee wrote:


[big snip]

>> Seems to me you are thinking like a human (because you are one) and not
>> > seeing portage's limits. Portage has no idea what would solve the issue
>> > so can't give any recommendations worth a damn. The best it can do is
>> > print some hardcoded logic that looks like it might apply.
> According to that, the human is even less able to figure out what might
> solve the problem than portage is: The human doesn't know anything about
> the huge number of dependencies involved, and even if they did, it would
> take them really really long to go through all of them to figure out
> anything at all.  Now if they do it right, the human would come to the
> same conclusion as portage, provided that portage does it right.
> 

[big snip]

Fellow, I'm done with you, really.

You hold onto your issues with portage like they were some treasured
memory of a long-since departed loved one, while all the time apparently
ignoring the correct valid solutions offeered by kind folks on this list.

Let it go. The devs know about portage output. I don't see you
submitting patches though.

-- 
Alan McKinnon
alan.mckin...@gmail.com


Reply via email to