Summary: | emerge --tree --pretend shows things once for nomerge and once for ebuild unneedlesly | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Portage Development | Reporter: | Petteri Räty (RETIRED) <betelgeuse> |
Component: | Core - Interface (emerge) | Assignee: | Portage team <dev-portage> |
Status: | RESOLVED INVALID | ||
Severity: | normal | CC: | again, toralf |
Priority: | High | ||
Version: | 2.2 | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- |
Description
Petteri Räty (RETIRED)
2007-03-19 21:16:07 UTC
(In reply to comment #0) > As we see in this case it would be correct to just replace nomerge with the two > last ones. Then merge list wouldn't be telling you the exact merge order, though (bug 158100). (In reply to comment #1) > (In reply to comment #0) > > As we see in this case it would be correct to just replace nomerge with the two > > last ones. > > Then merge list wouldn't be telling you the exact merge order, though (bug > 158100). > Well then I have one bug for you: These are the packages that would be merged, in reverse order: They are in order aren't they? (In reply to comment #2) > Well then I have one bug for you: > > These are the packages that would be merged, in reverse order: > > They are in order aren't they? Hmm? Given the output shown in comment #0, the merge order would be the order show for "[ebuild N ]" packages, read from bottom to top (it's reversed because without --tree the order reads from top to bottom). If you're saying that the "[nomerge ]" nodes shouldn't be shown, then I'm not sure how we can do that and still meet the main goal of --tree which is to show dependency relationships. I'm open to suggestions if you can think of a better way to display a PDEPEND relationship while still displaying the actual merge order. It's unfortunate that packages are displayed more than once in cases like this, but given the way that the --tree display works, how else can dependency relationships and merge order be displayed simultaneously? (In reply to comment #4) > If you're saying that the "[nomerge ]" nodes shouldn't be shown, then I'm > not sure how we can do that and still meet the main goal of --tree which is to > show dependency relationships. I'm open to suggestions if you can think of a > better way to display a PDEPEND relationship while still displaying the actual > merge order. It's unfortunate that packages are displayed more than once in > cases like this, but given the way that the --tree display works, how else can > dependency relationships and merge order be displayed simultaneously? > The current behavior is just fine. *** Bug 174371 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** *** Bug 212627 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** |