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
