|
Lines 349-354
class slot_conflict_handler(object):
Link Here
|
| 349 |
_pkg_use_enabled(other_pkg), |
349 |
_pkg_use_enabled(other_pkg), |
| 350 |
other_pkg.iuse.is_valid_flag, |
350 |
other_pkg.iuse.is_valid_flag, |
| 351 |
parent_use=parent_use) |
351 |
parent_use=parent_use) |
|
|
352 |
# It's possible for autounmask to change |
| 353 |
# parent_use such that the unevaluated form |
| 354 |
# of the atom now matches, even though the |
| 355 |
# earlier evaluated form (from before |
| 356 |
# autounmask changed parent_use) does not. |
| 357 |
# In this case (see bug #374423), it's |
| 358 |
# expected that violated_atom.use is None. |
| 359 |
# Since the atom now matches, we don't want |
| 360 |
# to display it in the slot conflict |
| 361 |
# message, so we simply ignore it and rely |
| 362 |
# on the autounmask display to communicate |
| 363 |
# the necessary USE change to the user. |
| 364 |
if violated_atom.use is None: |
| 365 |
continue |
| 352 |
if use in violated_atom.use.enabled or \ |
366 |
if use in violated_atom.use.enabled or \ |
| 353 |
use in violated_atom.use.disabled: |
367 |
use in violated_atom.use.disabled: |
| 354 |
unconditional_use_deps.add((ppkg, atom)) |
368 |
unconditional_use_deps.add((ppkg, atom)) |
| 355 |
- |
|
|
