I think this is best show here: [nomerge ] gnome-base/gnome-mount-0.6 USE="-debug -gnome" [nomerge ] gnome-base/libgnomeui-2.18.1 USE="jpeg -debug -doc" [nomerge ] gnome-base/libgnome-2.18.0 USE="-debug -doc -esd" [ebuild N ] gnome-base/gnome-vfs-2.18.1 USE="gnutls hal ssl -avahi -debug -doc -ipv6 -samba" 1,872 kB [ebuild N ] gnome-base/gnome-mount-0.6 USE="-debug -gnome" 456 kB [ebuild N ] x11-libs/libnotify-0.4.4 USE="-doc" 387 kB [ebuild N ] x11-misc/notification-daemon-0.3.7 USE="-debug" 403 kB [ebuild N ] x11-libs/libwnck-2.18.2 USE="-debug -doc" 471 kB [ebuild N ] x11-libs/libsexy-0.1.10 USE="-debug -doc" 379 kB [ebuild N ] app-text/iso-codes-0.58 4,322 kB Both libgnomeui and libgnome have gnome-mount as a dependency. Yet gnome-mount as yet not installed is show as a requiring them as a dependency. It looks like a circular reference? I put this as a enhancement, as this isn't invalid, the dependencies of gnome-mount are correct. Reproducible: Didn't try Expected Results: Not to show the dependency of a package that isn't installed under "nomerge"
I might be missing something, but it seems to me that this is not a bug, as the package is being installed, so it's dependencies are being shown. It is a circular reference though, looking at that output. If I'm horribly wrong someone will soon tell us ;)
(In reply to comment #0) > Expected Results: > Not to show the dependency of a package that isn't installed under "nomerge" We can call it something other than "nomerge", but the point is for it to be distinguishable from "ebuild". The ones that say "ebuild" are in actual reverse merge order, which is useful information for users (bug #158100).
(In reply to comment #0) > It looks like a circular reference? Circular references are fairly common. They're usually nothing to be concerned about unless they are invalid or cause some noticeable problem. (In reply to comment #2) > We can call it something other than "nomerge", but the point is for it to be > distinguishable from "ebuild". I think we should just leave it as "nomerge" because if the same package is shown without the "nomerge" label elsewhere in the list then most people would probably assume that it's being merged. Maybe we just need to update the docs to clarify this?
(In reply to comment #3) > I think we should just leave it as "nomerge" because if the same package is > shown without the "nomerge" label elsewhere in the list then most people would > probably assume that it's being merged. Maybe we just need to update the docs > to clarify this? > Yeah I agree: nomerge is fairly clear, and i don't see the need for a change personally, but if there is confusion as to what is going on, then it should be clarified in the docs. Maybe add a line or two about the reverse order (and whatever else you find yourself explaining to users)?
(In reply to comment #3) > I think we should just leave it as "nomerge" because if the same package is > shown without the "nomerge" label elsewhere in the list then most people would > probably assume that it's being merged. Maybe we just need to update the docs > to clarify this? That would satisfy me... if my two cents matter :)
Looks like people got used to it, closing as wontfix.
