Alan McKinnon <alan.mckin...@gmail.com> writes: > 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.
You ran out of arguments and remain at insisting that the problem is known and cannot be fixed because it's too complicated while rejecting suggestions but asking for patches. So I have no reason to think that patches would be any more welcome than suggestions, and now even if you came up with some pointer what to look at (since emerge, for example, is a wrapper script from which I couldn't see where to start), I wouldn't waste my time with it. Congratulations. -- Again we must be afraid of speaking of daemons for fear that daemons might swallow us. Finally, this fear has become reasonable.
