Summary: | Improve suggestions on how to solve use dependency problems with optional dependencies | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Portage Development | Reporter: | Petteri Räty (RETIRED) <betelgeuse> |
Component: | Core - Dependencies | Assignee: | Portage team <dev-portage> |
Status: | RESOLVED DUPLICATE | ||
Severity: | normal | CC: | esigra |
Priority: | High | ||
Version: | unspecified | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- | |
Bug Depends on: | |||
Bug Blocks: | 300071 |
Description
Petteri Räty (RETIRED)
2011-01-23 18:20:08 UTC
Are you aware of the --autounmask option? The comment it provides should contain a hint to the static use flag of cryptsetup. (In reply to comment #1) > Are you aware of the --autounmask option? The comment it provides should > contain a hint to the static use flag of cryptsetup. > If that option is able to solve such situations then the output should document it instead of people being required to know it. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 255482 *** |