In this problem I had, it was not so obvious that a keyword would have to be added. This would have been easily solved with a more informative message. <konsolebox> i hope someone here can explain why this happens: "emerge: there are no ebuilds to satisfy "app-text/ronn[ruby_targets_ruby24]"." <konsolebox> the ebuild is well-defined with USE_RUBY="ruby21 ruby22 ruby23 ruby24" <konsolebox> but i can only install it with ruby_targets_ruby22: https://bpaste.net/show/cf87fd0f3d76 <konsolebox> can't force it with emerge 'app-text/ronn[ruby_targets_24]'. <slyfox> i think it's because 'profiles/base/use.stable.mask:ruby_targets_ruby24' <slyfox> that use flag is masked on stable <slyfox> if you really want to try ruby 2.4 you need to unmask a flag first <slyfox> i think the way to do it is to create /etc/portage/use.stable.mask file and add '-ruby_targets_ruby24' there <konsolebox> slyfox: but why are other packages install-able with ruby_targets_ruby24? <slyfox> are they? <konsolebox> https://bpaste.net/show/cf87fd0f3d76 <slyfox> i'd expect them not enable that USE <konsolebox> the dependencies can be installed <konsolebox> with ruby_targets_ruby24 <konsolebox> even the ebuild i'm creating can <slyfox> ah, maybe because you have keyworded packages as ~arch <slyfox> that would also work <slyfox> my suggestion is a bit too harsh <konsolebox> i see <slyfox> adding app-text/ronn to package.accept_keywords should also allow ruby24 <konsolebox> yeah, just did it (to package.keywords that is) <konsolebox> looks like it's working now thanks a lot <konsolebox> imo, the error message should have been more informative, than just saying "no ebuilds satisfy..." <veremitz> konsolebox: file a portage patch :P they're a *lot* more descriptive than they used to be :p <konsolebox> veremitz: yeah, someday maybe <slyfox> konsolebox: i suggest filing a portage bug <slyfox> because it confuses a lot of people <konsolebox> slyfox: i find it difficult to elaborate the issue. can i just copy-paste this discussion as a comment for the bug? <slyfox> I think so Other people also get to have the same trouble: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=580034
