-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 04/11/13 10:07 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote: > El lun, 04-11-2013 a las 10:01 -0500, Ian Stakenvicius escribió: >> On 03/11/13 07:10 AM, Tom Wijsman wrote: >>> On Sun, 03 Nov 2013 10:53:13 +0200 Alan McKinnon >>> <alan.mckin...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On 02/11/2013 17:03, Michał Górny wrote: Sadly, it's >>>> somewhat common for (newish) users to not know what to do >>>> with that. Blocker output can be quite daunting in the >>>> beginning, especially if it's in the middle of 20 other >>>> things portage is also updating. >>> >>> +1 I agree, we should look into having errors not only tell >>> what we should not do, but also tell what we could do; every >>> time I see a blocker it is annoying that I have to go manually >>> search the solution. >>> >> >> This sounds like a great idea. >> >> However, let's first get Portage to stop dumping out massive >> amounts of useless and/or meaningless slot collision messages >> first, seemingly *whenever* there is some other random and >> unrelated blockage triggered. Dropping the extra noise will help >> a lot I think to make things more clear. >> > > I agree, but I think a bug was already opened due that and wasn't > so easy to solve :( (not sure if Zac will read this to clarify). I > think it was a problem due backtracking code > >
Oh absolutely -- i figured this isn't a trivial issue. :) But it does seem like something we will need to fix (that is, ensuring that blocker or conflict messages shown are -only- the ones that are actually relevant) before being able to make the messages themselves more user friendly and instructive. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iF4EAREIAAYFAlJ3uzgACgkQ2ugaI38ACPCGWQEAnIq5wGnsInGVH0j/yE8wY/ln uHkCGQOF3NSKb4zMvVEA/jkBKcA8nvnzepFlkQO1TEzzTlRhOJP82WXcbNS5K2KF =nNGm -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
